2008 ISSA Rules Update -- Section 5 (RACE RUNS)

[Pat Chewning]

I think we have a real concern here if the ISSA BOD makes statements such as the above.

Well, if you don't think precision is important, why do you record 1/1000's? And if we accept a certain "reasonably low" random error. Wouldn't we be better off recording 1/100s instead?

I think this is big concern. Time is all I care about and here you state, that it's not that important. It's worrying.

For sure I don't trust JRAD to do the "professional" testing for us, but I'm sending him a timer to check out the PC output.

/Jani

The ISSA BOD has made no statement on timing system precision, accuracy, repeatability, or other attributes. My statement is made by myself, and does not represent the official ISSA BOD policy. If some statement about timing system attributes should become an ISSA policy or requirement or rule, it will be clear in the publication that it is official ISSA policy (rather than Pat Chewning's opinion).

Jani, I think you misunderstood my points.

My 1st point is that there are various elements that can contribute to the inaccuracy, or errors of a timing system. Some of these elements are more important than others.

My 2nd point is that all timing systems have errors and inaccuracies, it is only the magnitude that differs from one system to the next.

My 3rd point is that Slalom Skateboarding probably has some maximum magnitude of error or inaccuracy beyond which a timing system becomes "useless" for our application. I don't know what that limit is. (e.g. Is 1/1000" close enough? Is 1/500" How about 1/200"? )

My 4th point is that of all the errors that might influence the final results of a race, it is my belief that the timing system is one of the smaller potential errors.

My 5th point is that choosing timing requirements, buying and testing systems, and qualifying and monitoring those systems is a task outside of the RACING RULES, and a process that I don't think the ISSA is ready to take on. (My personal opinion)

Finally, you have now introduced another attribute "PRECISION" which is entirely different from accuracy, repeatability, reproducability, and error. All of these attributes have specific meanings and they are not interchangeable.

[Jani Soderhall]

I think we have a real concern here if the ISSA BOD makes statements such as the above.

Well, if you don't think precision is important, why do you record 1/1000's? And if we accept a certain "reasonably low" random error. Wouldn't we be better off recording 1/100s instead?

I think this is big concern. Time is all I care about and here you state, that it's not that important. It's worrying.

For sure I don't trust JRAD to do the "professional" testing for us, but I'm sending him a timer to check out the PC output.

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

As long as the timing is CONSISTENTLY off then does it matter? Even in qualifying will it matter if the timing is .011 off if it's off the same for every skater?

Now, if red on Trakmate comes back 15.287 and red on Alge comes back 16.395, we may have a problem.

BUT

Not if the timing is consistently the same from race to race to race.

I think Wesley is saying:
A) We do not need a "very high" degree of accuracy. (Agreement with the National Bureau of Standards Cessium clock)
B) We do need a "reasonably low" value for the random error in the timing system. (Different results of a random and indeterminate nature when measuring the same standard event under the same conditions)
C) We can accept a "reasonably high" value for the systematic error in the timing system (constant offset from reference value, or constant scaling error). As long as the systematic error is applied to all racers and every race run.

Who is going to figure out the real values needed for "very high" accuracy, "reasonably low" random error, and "reasonably high" systematic errors?

I don't think you will be able to determine the timing system performance against the A, B, C criteria by: "send the system to 'X' and he'll compare it with 'Z' timing system".

Even if we (the ISSA) could do all of this, I don't think we SHOULD because we have much more significant (real and potential) errors to worry about such as:
i) Did the correct racer name and lane get assigned to the time on the clock?
ii) Did the cones get counted correctly?
iii) Did the starting ramp move closer or farther from the finish from race-to-race?
iv) Did the time on the clock get entered correctly into the spreadsheet? (Or was 22.465 entered as 22.456 ?)
--- etc.

[Wesley Tucker]

I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.


/Jani

Actually, it COULD do some harm. What if the ALGE and the TRACKMATE show differing results? Which one will be called "inaccurate"? Which timer, when used in a race will cause a boycott of the race?

OK.

It's like this.

If both systems are used simultaneously on the same dual course, let's hope the result are identical

BUT

If they are not, let's hope both systems are off to the same degree.

What does that mean?

Well, let's say the Trakmate records two times as the following

Red: 15.287
Whi: 15.347

That's a difference of .06

Now, let's say the Alge Timer records:

Red: 15.276
Whi: 15.336

Guess what? The difference is still .06

Does that mean one is recording a time that's .011 different from the other?

Yes.

Does it matter in determining who won the race? No. The differential is the same.
What's more who's going to say WHICH timer is correct and which one is off?

As long as the timing is CONSISTENTLY off then does it matter? Even in qualifying will it matter if the timing is .011 off if it's off the same for every skater?

Now, if red on Trakmate comes back 15.287 and red on Alge comes back 16.395, we may have a problem.

BUT

Not if the timing is consistently the same from race to race to race.

[Pat Chewning]

I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.


/Jani

Actually, it COULD do some harm. What if the ALGE and the TRACKMATE show differing results? Which one will be called "inaccurate"? Which timer, when used in a race will cause a boycott of the race?

[Jani Soderhall]

I'll send JRAD one of my Trackmates so that he can compare it to the Alge timer. That can't do any harm.

If someone has a scientific method and the appropriate skills to test a timer, please contact me.

/Jani

[Jani Soderhall]

Historically the ISSA applied a 99 sec DQ penalty. We considered that shouldn't be able to recover from a DQ, other than if the other guy does a DQ too, in which case you have one timed run each and can compare those. Easy.

Then the FCR series started with the 1.5 sec DQ penalty (I don't know if it had been done before), and a few guys actually managed to win back that 1.5 sec penalty. Especially in GS (which was dual back then).

I've kind of adapted (or accepted, don't know which) the 1.5 sec DQ penalty and now find that it leaves a bit of a challenge in a race that is pretty much doomed - but remember, you should never give up (I've done that too many times - I'm not doing it again!).

The JRAD proposed 1 sec penalty is most likely too small. We've seen several (longer) races, especially in the US, where second runs are slower than the first by that and sometimes more. Of course it would probably affect both riders in a dual run, but still.


Another aspect, which I wanted to bring up for you to consider, is that if you meet a really fast skater (32 against 1, for example), do your best, make the course and the clock shows that you're > 1.5 sec behind. In that case you would actually have been better off jumping off the board just before the timing strip. How cool is that? Maybe after all the 99 sec penalty wasn't all that bad?

I don't remember if this has been debated at length before, so I'm bringing it up, so we can go though it and decide what is best, easiest & most fair.

/Jani

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

For quali the best time counts for the H2H. There is no DQ time added. Two DQ's you are not qualified. In the H2H the faster racer has a "bye of 1 second".

If you have one lane, how do you do a H2H ?

One lane means for me 1-n runs best run count. No DQ penalty.


This just to keep it interesting in the H2H. Snowboard Parallel Slalom makes this because of the mentioned reason.


Not allow Software means there must be a hardware clock, not tapeswitches connected to the PC.

I don't want to compare with Racer C or D. Just to compare if the delta time of the Trackmate is every time the same compared to our ALGE. If the delta time is every time the same than there is no problem, if it isn't than there is a problem.

It is clear that the timing systems will not show the same times, but it will be intresting if the difference is every time the same.

[Pat Chewning]

The used timing-systems should be known by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system?
-To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.

Every timing system will have some inaccuracies. It is only when the magnitude of the inaccuracies start to affect the race outcome that we should become concerned.

In fact, for most of our racing, we do not require accuracy (total time accuracy to a known standard), because we are merely comparing racer A to racer B who are being timed by the same system under the same conditions, at the same time.

We have no need to compare to racer C (on another course, under different conditions, at a different date, using a different system).

I don't think we have the money, time, or expertise to qualify/test timing systems.

Almost every timing system involves some level of software (including Trackmate) ... does this mean we cannot use Trackmate, or any other system that has embedded software?

[Pat Chewning]

We have diffrent courses for special and tight at the most races in Europe.
Pro or Amateur.

suggestions:

The Racer who DQ get a Penalty of 1 second.

There is no DQ/limit for hitted cones.

The used timing-systems should be knowen by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system ?
To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.

In your proposal, you have a DQ penalty of 1 second.

Is this:
A) Added to the racer's raw time without any cone penalties?
B) Added to the racer's raw time , then add any cone penalties?
C) Added to the racer's opponent's time (if running dual-lane). (If so, then what about qualifying or single-lane events?)

I wanted a single way to treat DQ's regardless of whether they occur in head-to-head, single-lane racing, or qualifying.

I don't see why we would want to "soften" the DQ penalty once we get into the head-to-head rounds....

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

We have diffrent courses for special and tight at the most races in Europe.
Pro or Amateur.

Suggestions:

The Racer who DQ get a Penalty of 1 second.

There is no DQ/limit for hitted cones.

The used timing-systems should be known by the ISSA.
Software based timing-systems are not allowed.


Why testing the timing-system?
-To not have an inaccurate timing-systems on a Major/Main event.

[Pat Chewning]

Pat, I understand making it more challenging or raising the bar for the pro's. In many races though, 3/4 of the racer's are not pro's. Most of the money then is coming from the open riders who dont make the course, or make it but badly.
You take out all/most chances for the open/novice to finish the race, then you wont have prize/insurance money. Then you are left at getting sponser's to pony up cash. Which has been fairly tough I understand.
You are also telling open racers who want to have fun, to not race at all. This is not growing slalom.
Maybe an incouragemnt from ISSA to have 2 courses set to keep the open/novices interested.(to keep the growing amount of particpants coming back) My view is maybe more unique in Colorado where nobody sets an easier course for any race at anytime. I like to compete but spending 50 bucks or more and barely make a course so I can support the pro's is not what I call ideal for the growth of slalom.

Having 2 (or more) courses for the various skill levels is probably a natural outcome of making the PRO course challenging enough for the Pro racer...

[GARY GLASSER]

Pat, I understand making it more challenging or raising the bar for the pro's. In many races though, 3/4 of the racer's are not pro's. Most of the money then is coming from the open riders who dont make the course, or make it but badly.
You take out all/most chances for the open/novice to finish the race, then you wont have prize/insurance money. Then you are left at getting sponser's to pony up cash. Which has been fairly tough I understand.
You are also telling open racers who want to have fun, to not race at all. This is not growing slalom.
Maybe an incouragemnt from ISSA to have 2 courses set to keep the open/novices interested.(to keep the growing amount of particpants coming back) My view is maybe more unique in Colorado where nobody sets an easier course for any race at anytime. I like to compete but spending 50 bucks or more and barely make a course so I can support the pro's is not what I call ideal for the growth of slalom.

[Pat Chewning]

The 2008 rules update proposal calls for a 999 second DQ penalty (basically, DQ and you're out).

If this stands after all controversy and comments are done, would it make sense to add a rule that states:

"In Head-to-Head competition, if only one racer should DQ in the 1st run of a heat, the 2nd run of the heat is not taken."


Argument FOR: Well, racer A just got a 999 second DQ penalty. The 2nd run is not going to be very interesting as racer B coasts through with an easy run and racer A does whatever he can (spray cones) to make racer B DQ.....

Argument AGAINST: There is a chance that Racer B might DQ in the 2nd run, so this chance should be played out. Maybe the layout of the course and crown of the hill makes it more likely to DQ in one lane than the other. Racers are "ripped off" and don't get as many runs as they'd like.

[Pat Chewning]

If you have a high DQ Penalty there is no need to run the second run in the H2H.

Keep it low (p.e. 1 second) the second run will be intresting.

It's the way they do it in the Snowboard Parallel Slalom. Even if you are 5 second behind, you get the max Penalty of 1.5 seconds or somthing like that.

Where are the spectators on slalom races ?

There are millions of weekend skier every where on this planet. But there are perhaps 1000 weekend slalom skateboarders out there.

Make a 10 Cones DQ and you bann the technical tight races from Slalom Events !


My suggestions:

- set a max DQ time low enough.
- let the racer's hit Cones as much as they can.
- make a list with the timingsystems which can be used.
- Test the timingsystems if they are correct before include it on the list.
- It should not be allowed to use another not tested timingsystem at races



We are able to test the timing with our ALGE timingsystem.

======================================
Eventually, what will be needed is to translate suggestions such as yours into a specific set of words to inject into the rules.

Can you propose a specific wording to accomplish you suggestions above?

Things like "low enough" need a specific number -- don't leave it up to me or "low enough" will be 999 seconds!
=======================================

Racers hitting as many cones as they want: Is this really good racing and what we want to promote? In my opinion, slalom racing is about going AROUND the cones, not through them.

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

List of timing systems -- no, I do not think the ISSA will be doing that. That opens up a HUGE problem with liability for not placing some system on the list that should be there, or placing one on the list that shouldn't be there. Then there's the overhead to test each manufacturer's timing system models every year ... blah .... blah.... blah I can't see the benefit. The ISSA proposed rule update has timing system requirements (common start, tones, display finish time, display false-start interval). It is up to the race organizer to select and implement a timing/display system that can do those functions (purchase or make). And who is going to buy all of these timing systems and test them?

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

I agree that the RACE ORGANIZER should never use a timing system that he has never tested before race day. But the ISSA is not involved in testing timing systems, and should not be.

==============================================
A high DQ penalty in the H2H may mean that some 2nd runs are not made. I consider that a benefit of a high DQ penalty, not a problem ......

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

If you have a high DQ Penalty there is no need to run the second run in the H2H.

Keep it low (p.e. 1 second) the second run will be intresting.

It's the way they do it in the Snowboard Parallel Slalom. Even if you are 5 second behind, you get the max Penalty of 1.5 seconds or somthing like that.

Where are the spectators on slalom races ?

There are millions of weekend skier every where on this planet. But there are perhaps 1000 weekend slalom skateboarders out there.

Make a 10 Cones DQ and you bann the technical tight races from Slalom Events !


My suggestions:

- set a max DQ time low enough.
- let the racer's hit Cones as much as they can.
- make a list with the timingsystems which can be used.
- Test the timingsystems if they are correct before include it on the list.
- It should not be allowed to use another not tested timingsystem at races



We are able to test the timing with our ALGE timingsystem.

[Pat Chewning]

5.1 START OF RUN


5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.

This is good for races that don't have a "b" or "c" course and the newest slalomer has to run the same course the pro's run. It can be frustrating especially if you just spent 50$ or more (not including gas/flight and BenGay and BandAid's)

One of the goals of revising the rules is to "raise the bar" and make the rules present the best racing for the highest-skilled racers on the highest status races. I'm afraid that one of the outcomes of this will be to remove the expectation that the lowest-level beginner racer can (or should) enter the same race as Pro racers. We don't expect everyday drivers to enter F1 races, and we don't expect weekend skiers to enter World Cup ski races. The days of a single race course accomodating Pros and beginners is unfortunately over. In order to challenge the Pros, we will probably have to make it nearly impossible for the beginners to make the course. Such is the price of progress.

[Pat Chewning]

5.1 START OF RUN
I think there are two ways of handling fals starts
1. With time penalty
2. With restart. 2:nd False start is DQ.

The second solution is good when not having timing equipment to give you fals start timing.

Method 1 above is the ONE way of doing false starts that is being proposed in the 2008 rules update. (The standard way to run a race of higher status)

If you are running a race of lower status and do not have timing equipment to give the false start amount, then you can document this deviation from the rules in the sanction application, receive a sanction for a lower-status race, and run the race in that manner.

You will still need timing system that DETECTS (but does not quantify) a false start to apply method 2 above .....

If your timing system does not even DETECT a false start, then the race is probably going to be run with "individual timing" (no common tone-start). Which is yet another deviation from the standard 2008 rules -- and would have to be documented on the sanction application.

[Pat Chewning]

5.1 START OF RUN

5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.

The 2008 Rules proposal contains:
10-cone DQ
999 second DQ penalty

There is no provision for a "DQ" time of 1 second -- (I assume this means add 1 second to the opponent's time in head-to-head racing).

There is no provision for a "10% of total time DQ" -- (I assume this means add 10% to the opponent's time in head-to-head racing. Or maybe 10% to the racer's raw time?)

The reasoning behind the heavy DQ penalty of 999 seconds (basically DQ and you're out) is described in the discussion of section 6.

The reasoning behind a cone limit of 10 for a DQ is:

A) 10 cones are easily counted by one person in a reasonable amount of time.
B) More than 10 cones looks really bad to the spectators and they have to wonder if the racers are even supposed to go around the cones.
C) My personal bias that courses should be set and racers should be "encouraged" to run cleaner. One way to encourage cleaner runs is to set a DQ penalty for too many cones hit.


Remember -- these rules as stated are the "STANDARD" rules for high level competition. I expect some limited amount of variance to the rules for lower status competitions. In this particular case, I would rather that the lower level competition adjust the course setting so fewer cones are hit -- rather than re-adjusting the number of cones allowed before a DQ.

Some courses, some hills 10 cone DQ will be too many cones. Some courses, some hills 10 cone DQ will be too few.

In my mind, the ideal race (at higher levels of competition) will DQ about 1/4 of the field of racers. Another 20-30% will not have fast enough times to make the head-to-head. The final 50% of the racers will make it into the head-to-head rounds.

I'm interested in other opinions.....

[GARY GLASSER]

5.1 START OF RUN


5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.

This is good for races that don't have a "b" or "c" course and the newest slalomer has to run the same course the pro's run. It can be frustrating especially if you just spent 50$ or more (not including gas/flight and BenGay and BandAid's)

[Hans Koraeus]

5.1 START OF RUN
I think there are two ways of handling fals starts
1. With time penalty
2. With restart. 2:nd False start is DQ.

The second solution is good when not having timing equipment to give you fals start timing.

5.4 DISQUALIFICATIONS
I don't think there should be a fixed rule to say that more than 10 cones is DQ.

If you have a DQ time of 1 second on a 0,1 sec conepenalty course then it would be true.
But if you have a 10% of total time DQ or whatever then it may be different.

And by all means the best: Take as many cones as you want and be penalized for it. But never DQ:ed.

[Pat Chewning]

Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?

The trackmate stores the results in a stack/buffer that can be accessed until you turn off the timer. I am not sure of the size/depth of the buffer, but it is at least 20 racers.

In practice, the person running the timer will usually write down the false-start and the elapsed time, the cone counts, and then arm the timer for the next racers. Once armed, the display goes away, but can be accessed later by stepping through the buffered results.

[Wesley Tucker]

Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?

The reaction time stays on the timer as long as the race time does. In other words the Race Marshall can take all the time he needs to record the reaction time or the false start. It doesn't go away until the timer is reset for the next run.

[GARY GLASSER]

My thought is if you limit yourselves to a certain brand/function i.e Trackmate and they go out of business..what will be accepted next? I only suggest that the rules say/imply a start stop electronic timing device and software that accomplishes what is already used currently. (must have a capture of .001) I agree it be uniform but not completely limited.

The reasoning that there are other devices out there that ISSA may find acceptable currently and in the future. (Without having to make a rule change and or addendum when a better system is found)

For example that ISSA may find the timing devices/software used by marathon races all over the world will work as well (if not better) in the near or not so near future.

[Pat Chewning]

The timing system is NOT specified in the rules. There are at least 3 timing systems that I am aware of that meet the specifications (Tones, common-start, display reaction time). There are likely to be more in the future.

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

The Trackmate is one good example, and JRAD asks several questions about that timing system, which are good questions, but outside the scope of defining the specifications for the timing requirements of the race.

The details of the internal workings of the timing system (interface to computer, arming procedure, connection to speakers, synchronization of tones to timing) are not specified.

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

One of the more important, and perhaps "hidden" items in this rule is this:

The timing is the same (common start, tones, false-start penalty) for single-lane races, for qualifying, and for head-to-head.

The reasons I did not put in the individual-start timing method for qualifying or single lane is:

A) To prevent people from sitting in the gate for a long time. (e.g. A certain racer at Hood River who sat in the gate for a full minute waiting for a head wind to subside).

B) Consistency for the racers. Same thing every time.

C) Consistency for the organizers. No need to remember to switch from one mode to another.

D) Professional appearance: racers are motivated to go on the "START" tone

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

Thanks for the info Wesley.

How long do you have time to write the false start time down?

[Wesley Tucker]

One other thing.

Everyone has to remember these rules are for ISSA SANCTIONED EVENTS.

I think it's safe to assume a race organizer who gets a Basic, Prime, Main or Major status will have the wherewithall to have an up-to-date timing system.

Without such a system it would be fruitless to pursue having a sanctioned race.

So, the ISSA establishing rules for appropriate timing systems is certainly within the purview of the oragnization.

After all, would you want to travel to a Prime only to find out the timing is a stop watch and some flags at the bottom of the hill?

[Wesley Tucker]

How does the trackmate knows when the time must start ? Does the Input comes from a computer ? or how it works ?

How is the pre start showed on the Trackmate ?

Jadranko,

The new TrakMates have TWO modes: one is for qualifying and the other for racing. In one mode the timer starts when you hit the tape switch and it stops when you hit the second tape switch at the end of the course.

In the other mode the Race Marshall hits a button.
There are FOUR TONES.
The timer STARTS on the fourth tone whether the racer starts or not.
If the racer goes EARLY (before the fourth tone) the false start appears on the screen as a NEGATIVE number.
The clock starts at the same time for both racers.
The FIRST racer to hit the bottom tape swith stops HIS clock. The second racer will then stop HIS clock.

It really is head to head racing. No more sandbagging or jumping the start. Everything is racing against the clock and against the other racer in the other lane.

The new TrakMate handles all this.

[Donald Campbell]

the main issue at the moment is the price other systems are set at.
a trackmate or anything comparable is the fairest solution for any race organizer.

[GARY GLASSER]

There may be other timing systems in the future, will the rules accept other and future timing applications?[/i][/b]

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

I agree that theer should be the same rules for all.

I think there will be a need to have a trackmate to do it in this way? For us it's not a problem to get the hardware we need for the beep things together. It's just a question of money. I think there will be a need of knowledge transfer for the organiser which don't work with this start methode.

How does the trackmate knows when the time must start ? Does the Input comes from a computer ? or how it works ?

How is the pre start showed on the trackmate ?

The solutions with the Gates is the same as the doubled false start.
Both want to keep false starts from the races.

The solution with the Gates is for shure easier than the other. The differences is that it is not possible to make any mistakes with a startgate as long the gates works well. The other solution has the human who has to transfer the times from the timer to the spreadsheets and a timer which starts, than stops for the false start and than stops again for the finish time.

Is it possible to have displays connected to the trackmate ?

Here it will be important to get the organisers together for this rule, to find out if it's possible or not to run it in this way.

[Carsten Pingel]

...and not everybody has the "signal" start! There must also be a solution for "normal" starts like "racers ready, 5 seconds warning, go!"

[Jani Soderhall]

What if there is no audible start signal ? A start with Gates, where the time starts when the Gates open ?

I assume it should be considered not allowed. Nobody has such gates, or use them, at this time. If we want equal rules we'd better use a system without such hardware.

/Jani

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

The timing system is armed and the racers given an audible signal.

· The timing system provides tones on 1-second intervals:

What if there is no audible start signal ? A start with Gates, where the time starts when the Gates open ?

[Pat Chewning]

Put comments on Section 5 here.

You may view the draft rules here in 3 forms:

As a WORD document: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.doc

As a PDF document:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... FT-0_2.pdf

As a Webpage:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.htm

5. Race Runs
5.1. Start of Run
The start of the run shall follow a predictable and consistent sequence for all racers:

· Racers are called to the start and assume a ready position in the start ramp

· Race officials determine that the course is ready and the racers are ready.

· The timing system is armed and the racers given an audible signal.

· The timing system provides tones on 1-second intervals:

· 3 seconds to start

· 2 seconds to start

· 1 second to start

· START (Shall differ in pitch, duration, or volume from the preceding tones)

· Upon START signal, the clock will start for both courses, regardless of whether the racers have passed the start line.

· Should a racer start before the START signal, the racer shall be penalized by an amount of 2X the early-start interval.

· Should a racer start after the START signal, no additional penalty is given

5.2. Successful Passing Through The Course
A racer is deemed to have successfully passed through the course if the skateboard:

· Passes thru the start line and triggers the start signal.

· Passes cones on the correct side.

· Passes cones on the incorrect side, yet displaces the cone.

· Passes through the finish line and triggers the finish signal.

· The racer is not disqualified for other reasons.

5.3. Cone Displacements
A cone is counted as being displaced if either of these occurs:

· The entire base of the cone is outside of the entire cone-circle on the surface of the course.

· The cone is tipped over and not standing upright.



A cone is NOT counted as being displaced if:

· The cone is tipped over by an outside agent (includes being hit by a cone from the adjacent course).



The cone penalty shall be:

· 0.1 second for Slalom races

· 0.2 second for GS races

· 0.3 second for Super-GS races

5.4. Disqualifications
The racer is disqualified during the run for any of the following:

· Unsuccessfully passing through the course.

· Displacing more than 10 cones.

· Displacing any cone by contact above the knees.

· Placing any part of the body (including hands and feet) onto the course surface during the race.

· Unsporting conduct (interfering with a racer, damaging equipment, etc.)

5.5. Finish of Run
The time for each racer stops when the racer passes over the finish line.

After passing the finish line, the racer may stop in any manner (foot-drag, slide, carve, turn uphill, etc.)

OFFICIAL VOTE FOR THIS SECTION 5 (Race Runs)

The quoted text box above is the "draft proposal". In this area, we capture all of the requested changes in the form of a vote. Then the section will be changed as dictated by the outcome of the vote.

Please make comments as to whether the voting completely encompasses all alternatives, and without bias. The expected date of this vote will be Nov 15-Nov30

Vote Question #5.1 (Section 5, 1st Vote)
How shall the early start be penalized?
A) By an amount 2X the early-start interval.
B) The racers are signaled. They stop, return to the start ramp and do a re-start. A 2nd early-start by the same racer shall result in a DQ for that racer.
C) No rule is needed. (No start penalty)

Vote Question #5.2 (Section 5, 2nd Vote)
How shall the start be accomplished?
A) By a 4 second 4-tone count-down, the last tone being the START signal.
B) Racers are given a "Ready" signal, and some time later a START signal.
C) The start ramp is fitted with physical barrier gates. The racers may proceed when the gate opens. In the 2nd round of head-to-head competition, the gate for the leading racer opens earlier than the gate for the other racer (by an amount equal to the lead).


Vote Question #5.3 (Section 5, 3rd Vote)
What is the upper limit for displacing cones before a DQ is given?
A) 10 cones. (11 is a DQ)
B) 100% of the cones on the course.
C) 20% of the total number of cones in the course. (20% + 1 cone is a DQ)
D) By the following formula:
20% of the # of cones, minus 1 cone for every 150 feet (50m) beyond the 1st 150 feet (50m). If this value is less than or equal to 0, then no cones are allowed (clean run or DQ).

Vote Question #5.4 (Section 5, 4th Vote)
What shall be the rule for timing systems allowed/prohibited?
A) No rule is needed.
B) Timing systems on the ISSA-approved list shall be used.
C) Timing systems on the ISSA-prohibited list shall not be used.