2008 US Nationals Proposed Racing Format

[Wesley Tucker]

Pat,

First of all, there has to be a timer. We still qualify with time.

Secondly, the timer is needed to say who won. Start-run-finish. The fastest time on the clock is the winner. Eyeballs can do the job but a clock is the real indicator. Just like in drag racing. People don't look for a view screen to see who nosed the line first: they look at the clock (unlike in horse racing.)

I don't know where anyone said anything about a "surprise" GO tone. Where did that come from? The four tone start is still imperative (just like the christmas tree.)

"DQ really means DQ" is the antithesis of "DQ means a penalty but not neceassarily if the skater goes 1.5+X faster in the next run."

"Single run per heat." If running in both lanes to get an accurate reflection of the skater's performance then why do we only consider the fast time from one lane when qualifying? To be consistent shouldn't qualifying be (Red Lane + White Lane)/2? Since we use fast lane time for qualifying then why not fast lane time for racing?

"No start penalty." I don't know if we ever had a start penalty. If you mean "no false start penalty" then I disagree. The penalty is a DQ.

Again, this format has a single purpose in mind: less clock, less math, less variables, more racing.

[Pat Chewning]

from a noobs perspective this rocks....I would much race this way than cone penalties...I think it would also promote cleaner racing especially it the max cone numbers gradually fell down to less than 10%. I know there are all kinds of tactics and stragedy with criddling and such but every other form of slalom is simple you miss a gate you are OUT

Reducing the # of cones to hit before a DQ can be applied equally well to the "normal" way of racing (two runs per heat, single elimination, start penalty, use a clock, etc).

This proposed way of racing includes so many deviations from the norm, that it is hard to discuss it because we don't know if we are discussing:
Lack of timer -- first to the line wins
No cone penalty
No start penalty
Low # of cones before DQ
DQ really means DQ
Single-run per heat
Dual elimination
Start on a surprise "GO" tone

I agree that there are potential benefits to the overall proposal. I agree that it should be selectively applied to some lower-status races this year. I disagree that the highest-status race in N. America should use this format this year.

[Tony Peters]

from a noobs perspective this rocks....I would much race this way than cone penalties...I think it would also promote cleaner racing especially it the max cone numbers gradually fell down to less than 10%. I know there are all kinds of tactics and stragedy with criddling and such but every other form of slalom is simple you miss a gate you are OUT

edit: even in drag racing the faster guy gets lane choice....you can win from the slower lane all day and still not get the faster lane

[Chris Barker]

In my opinion, the biggest issue with the proposal is not running both lanes and giving lane choice to one of the racers. Seldom is the racing surface without any crown. Seldom are the actual surfaces equal on both lanes. There are factors like grease, holes, surface/erosion inconsistencies, shading, plus inconsistencies in the actual cone placements.

In almost all events, one lane is simply a better lane to race on.

Slalom skateboard racing is seldom on a flat, consistent, surface like drag racing.

[Wesley Tucker]

I like it. I think this system should be tested before using it for a race as important as one deciding our national champion. Looks like you'll have to put on 2 races this year Jack!

Kevin,

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but that's already been considered. The way I understand it there will be some races this Spring trying the new elimination process.

Also, Jack has already made a small but not inconsequential sacrifice to this by buying double-elimination bracket software.

You see, when the cone counting, DQ time penalties and false start aspects of an event are taken out of the equation then our races are just like any other double-elimination format. We can use the same software used for bowling leagues or fencing tournaments. It's all the variables we've added to the process that made specialized spreadsheet and race management software requirements necessary.

Now, the timing table looks at the clock. IF there are no DQs then the faster of the two times is the winner. Put a checkmark by the winner's name and the loser goes to the do-or-die. Next race.

We will of course have "photo finishes." I always go back to my own race with Joe I in Texas where the difference between winning and losing was .009. I doubt a spectator would know who won until it came from the timing table. But that even adds more to the fun of the racing. A clear close finish will remain a close finish. We won't see close finishes turn into blowouts because of various penalties added to each racer's time.

[Kevin Dunne]

I like it. I think this system should be tested before using it for a race as important as one deciding our national champion. Looks like you'll have to put on 2 races this year Jack!

[Wesley Tucker]

I was talking to Karr today and another aspect of this format came to me.

In recent races the DHBs and other promoters have added a "remote computer terminal" so racers can see their results without pestering the timing table. Skaters get information about their first run, the timing differential needed to make up in the second run and compare times with others in the same bracket.

By happenstance this becomes MUCH LESS IMPORTANT. Skater will no longer have to wonder about their first time and what is needed in the second run in order to advance. With this format it doesn't matter. When a skater loses they move on to another completely new bracket against a different racer.

The remote timing table will still be a nice feature because skaters will still want to compare times and know what's going on with the competition. The recorded times will provide this insight. The recorded times, though, will not be the determining factor in winning and losing, though. The finish line is now what matters.

AND

Here's another biggie that will interest everyone: there will no longer be such a thing as RAW TIMES. Whatever time is on the clock is the time it took to run the race. A time is a time. A DQ is a DQ and a win is a win.

[Pat Chewning]

I like the concept of a DQ really meaning DQ. Some of the convoluted rules we have are due to trying to artificially construct a time for a racer who did not finish the course. The original proposal for the ISSA rules was for a 999 second DQ penalty. Pretty much the same result.

So in essence the 999 second DQ means the only reason skaters race again is in hopes the other guy DQs? Otherwise it was just an exercise in futility.

In my opinion, the 2nd run should be eliminated if a single racer DQ'd on the 1st run. However, the members voted to keep the 2nd run, so that's the way it is.

[Wesley Tucker]

Let's not forget another element of double elimination racing and the changes in DQ and cones:
THE SPECTATORS.

With this format there is no doubt who won - the guy who crosses the finish line first.

Keep in mind this proposal I made and Jack took up in earnest in a combination of two different ideas:

1. Double Elimination racing
2. Max Cones and DQs.

The cones and DQ thing can apply to current combined-time/dual lane racing. I only added that as an incentive to make racing even more spectator friendly.

As I said in another thread with our current format there is a preponderance of doubt as to who won a race until all the counting, math, DQ penalties, false start penalties and clock results are added together and algebraically computed to determine who won. Nobody really knows anything until the timing table gets done with the voodoo they do so well.

And not only the spectators. How many times have racers run their heat, hit the run out, stopped, picked up their board and started back up the hill and still have no clue who won?

With this format the winner is the skater who crosses the finish line first without a DQ.

Isn't that what racing should be?

[Wesley Tucker]

I like the concept of a DQ really meaning DQ. Some of the convoluted rules we have are due to trying to artificially construct a time for a racer who did not finish the course. The original proposal for the ISSA rules was for a 999 second DQ penalty. Pretty much the same result.

So in essence the 999 second DQ means the only reason skaters race again is in hopes the other guy DQs? Otherwise it was just an exercise in futility.

[Jack Smith]

It looks slightly harder than normal bracketing to make sure you get the right pairing of people, and in the right lane. (Because there is no pre-determined lanes, and because there are not racer-pairs over two runs.)
There are pre-set brackets for fields from 8 to 32 racers

The concept of no time penalty for hitting cones does not really eliminate the need for coneheads.
The proposal states fewer coneheads.

[Pat Chewning]

Don't you have to follow all those rules the ISSA has voted on inorder to get sanctioning? I'm not sure.

Yes, Karl, you read the rules correctly. For MAJOR status races the ISSA rules only allow very few and very minor deviations from the racing rules.

I'm glad you understand that. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who won't understand. (e.g. If the "US NATIONALS" should only get a PRIME ISSA status).

[Pat Chewning]

In "normal" racing: (Two-run heats, single-elimination)
You get 2 chances to lose the race. One in each lane. Both chances are against the same person. The "chances" are added together.

In "proposed" racing: (One-run heats, dual elimination)
You get 2 chances to lose the race. One chance against one racer, one against another racer. You are not guaranteed they will be in each of the lanes. The "chances" are taken individually.


"Normal" racing takes math to add run 1 and run 2

"Proposed" racing does not need the math.

All of the other stuff (like DQ really means DQ, no cone penalty, various start methods, differential timing, etc) can be applied to "normal" or "proposed" racing formats with the same benefits.... and with the same risks.

[Pat Chewning]

Very interesting.

My observations so far:

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

The Winner takes 7 runs in the double-elimination head-to-head (normal bracketing gives 10 runs to win). The winner potentially "defends" his title against 7 different people (as opposed to 5 different people in normal bracketing).

The 32nd place guy takes 2 runs against 2 different people before being eliminated (normal bracketing gives 2 runs against the same person).


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

The total number of runs is 62 (vs 64 runs for normal bracketing)

So any time-savings will have to come from less cone-counting, less math, less??

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

It looks slightly harder than normal bracketing to make sure you get the right pairing of people, and in the right lane. (Because there is no pre-determined lanes, and because there are not racer-pairs over two runs.)

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

I like the concept of a DQ really meaning DQ. Some of the convoluted rules we have are due to trying to artificially construct a time for a racer who did not finish the course. The original proposal for the ISSA rules was for a 999 second DQ penalty. Pretty much the same result.

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

The concept of a DQ penalty for going over a (small) amount of cones is a good concept. I like it. The original proposal for the ISSA rules was 10-cones equals a DQ. The racers voted for 20% ....

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

The concept of no time penalty for hitting cones does not really eliminate the need for coneheads. Cones still need to be accurately counted (up to the DQ penalty amount). Cones still need to be checked for being in place. Displaced cones still need to be returned to the course.

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

The concept of a "random" or "surprise" start tone with a DQ penalty for going early is similar to swim meets and track meets. It works until people start jumping the gun and getting DQ'd -- or both racers are getting DQ'd .

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

The concept of "one run" dual-lane head-to-head is a good one. I'll bet if we did a statistical analysis of past races, we would find that the winner of the 2-run heats usually is the winner in BOTH of the 2 runs.... so why do 2 runs? A computer-random lane selector could work, as does the method of letting the higher qualifier choose the lane. (We have done this in some CSA races when we were running out of time to do 2-run heats).

-----------

I think that a MAJOR status race could handle maybe one of these deviations from the ISSA rules. But to take all of these deviations and bundle them together is a bit too much for a race of MAJOR status. This year would be good for a few PRIME and BASIC races to try these various formats out and then see if the ISSA rules need to be adjusted for 2009 -- at which point MAJOR races could use all of the accepted alterations.


So that's what I think.

[Karl Floitgraf]

Don't you have to follow all those rules the ISSA has voted on inorder to get sanctioning? I'm not sure.

I'm not a big fan of equal Nth placing, I think there is a difference between 5th place and 8th place. Qualifying should matter.

[Jack Smith]

First of all I want to thank Wes Tucker for bringing this format to my attention, I would also like to thank both Wes and Gary Fluitt for their valuable input in refining this proposal.

As most of you know I have been an ardent advocate of the "differential timing" dual slalom format. I have also been just as strong in my support of the "equal 5th, 9th, 17th" placing method. After much thought and discussion with Wes, Gary and others I feel the time is right to step away from the current system and try something new and different.

Below you will find the proposed format along with a "mock race" bracket. We invite you to take a look.

2008 US National Slalom Skateboarding Championships Proposed Racing Format

Double Elimination Racing is a DIFFERENT kind of racing. Only experience and time will determine if it is better. The differences, though, are readily obvious:

• Less Clock
• Less Math
• Less Arbitrary Race-Day Rules
• Less time between runs
• Less Doubt About Victory
• More Opportunities For Every Racer
• More Emphasis on the Starting Line
• More Emphasis on the Finish Line
• More Emphasis on SPEED
• No more wondering if a cone is .1 or .2. Cones are cones
• Different courses, though, will allow different max cone allowances
• More fun for spectators
• Better for television
• Fewer Cone Heads
• Fewer cone counting errors

As with anything different the most important difference a racer can bring to a double-elimination event is an open mind. Consider qualifying as a first step. The Winner's Bracket is another step. The Do-or-Die bracket is an opportunity to race again with better odds. Cones should be thought of as course markers and not as course penalties. The "starting line" is just that: the start. It's no longer an arbitrary idea with a plus-or-minus at a racer's discretion.

And most importantly: the racer who stays in the course and crosses the finish line first wins.

Qualifying:
Each racer gets two runs. One per lane.
No per cone penalty.
There will be a maximum cone penalty.
Number of cones allowed will be determined after the course is set.

Seeding:
Number of racers advancing to the head to head racing will be based on number of entries in each class.
Seeding will be done in the usual 1-32, 2-31 method.

Head to head racing:
Fastest qualifier in each heat has LANE CHOICE.
No per cone penalty.
There will be a maximum cone penalty.
Number of cones allowed, same as qualifying.
False start is a DQ (loss).
Failing to make the course is a DQ (loss).

Two racers run the course. One run. No switching lanes.
First racer (without a False start or DQ) across the finish line wins.
Winner goes to winner’s bracket.
Loser goes to “Do or Die” bracket.

Winners Bracket – Double DQs:
IF there is a double DQ that means both racer have a LOSS.
NO ONE WITH A LOSS can stay in the Winner's bracket.
So, Double DQ in the winner's bracket. Do over.
Winner GOES TO THE LOSER'S BRACKET to fill out the heat.
Loser is DONE
In the next round of the Winner's bracket someone has a bye.

Do or Die Bracket – Double DQs:
In the event of a double DQ both racers now have two losses so they are both eliminated.
In the next round of the “Do or Die Bracket” someone has a bye.

EVERYONE does get a second run: in the “Do or Die”.
In a 32-man bracket 16 skaters will not advance. They move to the losers bracket.
Same rules: fastest qualifier gets lane choice.
You keep racing until you have TWO losses. (One in the "main" bracket and one in the "loser's" bracket.) Eventually, everybody will have two losses EXCEPT the skater who wins the winner bracket.

The way it works is that through the course of the race, EVERYBODY BUT ONE RACER will go to the “Do or Die” 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 just one racer at the conclusion of the winner’s bracket that has no losses.

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. There is an excellent chance a bunch of slower skaters are going to run in the "slow" lane twice. That's the breaks. Want to pick your lane? Qualify faster.

Advantages:
Less time between races for racers due to less counting of cones,
and no time penalty calculations.

Typically, in the first round of the current system a lower qualifying racer will be eliminated from the race after his first heat with the high qualifying racer. In the new system a lower qualifier who is defeated in the first round of the winner’s bracket will move to the “Do or Die” bracket and race someone closer to their qualifying position.

Another scenario: A “top racer” has a bad qualifying round and is seeded against another
“top racer” in the first round, in the current system, we lose a “marquee racer” in the first round. In the new system it is possible for the one-loss “marquee racer” to fight his way back to the winner’s bracket and end up competing for the championship with the racer who beat him in the first round.

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.

Overall Placings:
Champion and 2nd Place determined by a head to head race ( two in the event that the winner of the “Do or Die “ bracket defeats the Winner’s bracket champion in their first championship heat).

3rd Place – Loser of Round 8 of “Do or Die” bracket.
4th Place – Loser of Round 7 of “Do or Die” bracket.

5th Place – Loser of Round 6 of “Do or Die” bracket with higher qualifying position.
6th Place – Loser of Round 6 of “Do or Die” bracket with lower qualifying position.

7th Place – Loser of Round 5 of “Do or Die” bracket with higher qualifying position.
8th Place – Loser of Round 5 of “Do or Die” bracket with lower qualifying position.


9th Place – Loser of Round 4 of “Do or Die” bracket with highest qualifying position.
10th Place – Loser of Round 4 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
11th Place – Loser of Round 4 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
12th Place – Loser of Round 4 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.

13th Place – Loser of Round 3 of “Do or Die” bracket with highest qualifying position.
14th Place – Loser of Round 3 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
15th Place – Loser of Round 3 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
16th Place – Loser of Round 3 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.

17th Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with highest qualifying position.
18th Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
19th Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
20th Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos
21st Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
22nd Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
23rd Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos
24th Place – Loser of Round 2 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos

25th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with highest qualifying position.
26th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
27th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
28th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos
29th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
30th Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos.
31st Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos
32nd Place – Loser of Round 1 of “Do or Die” bracket with next highest qualifying pos



If you would like a larger view of the bracket, you can get it here:
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj53 ... etTest.jpg