Another perspective on the rules

Triathlon Forum
1

Some of Slowman’s writings have got me to thinking about other sports’ rules and what is blatant and what is not.
Many of you come from a swimming background and have competed in high school and college. I am pretty sure you have been on relay teams where one member leaves the blocks early and have received the penalty, DQ. When it happened did they tell you your teammate left .1 second too soon(not blatant)or 2 seconds too soon(blatant).
In my first attempt at breaststroke in a masters competition, I failed to touch the wall with two hands, only one, and it was not blatant. Should I have been DQ’d as I was or should I have been taken aside and scolded?
How many long jump, javelin, shot put and discus records have been nullified by an inch of toe over the board? Should this draconian method of calling fouls be changed so that the inch or so is taken off the final measurement? And a little bitty inch is not very blatant.
Maybe the Boston Marathon people did an injustice to Rosie Jones by not ruling that her shortening of the course was blatant or not. Since she wasn’t a pro, maybe she should have been declared the winner.
As I have said before, the biggest critic of officials are those people in the race, the guys who perceive you are not calling the proper or amount of penalties that should be called. That is my experience.

Bob Sigerson

2

Well from my very limited triathlon experience, “blatant” is a relative word. You may be sizing up the rider in front of you, trying to figure the best/safest way by them as they sway back and forth on the road. You get picked off by the officials who call it “blatant drafting”. You called it a “safety survey”.

From my 9.5 years as a strokes and turns judge, you either tagged the wall or you didn’t. Blatant has no place or meaning.

In sports where the target is a moving object, I think there must be some objectivity. In sports where there is a line, a wall etc. there is no place for objectivity. Having said that, the call is still made by a human who depends on his/her eyes to make the call and if the call is even the least bit “iffy”, tie goes to the runner and the swimmer gets away with it.

J

3

One point I often do not see in this forum, is a triathlete who acknowledges that they did not read the competitive rules, did not go to the pre race meeting and when they are observed causing an infraction by a referee, blames the official.

There seems to be a grave misunderstanding about rules and their enforcement. In Triathlon, like most sports that have a complete set of rules to offer fair and equal competition, many too many competitors believe they know all and don’t need to know the rules. The mistake that I see used repeatedly in these threads, the guilty individuals continue to fault the official and feign to take responsibility for their infractions.

Referee’s don’t “pick off,” or “hand out,” penalties. The experienced referee observes infractions of the rules occurring on the field of play, and duly notes the individual and the rule infracted. In some sports, it is safe and does not affect the outcome of the event, by stopping the clock to issue and record the infraction. In the world’s most popular sport, futbol (or soccer to Americans) the time used for a stopped clock due to on the field injury or penalty issue, is added onto the end of the periods. In the sports where the clock is not stopped, such as swimming, cycling, track, infractions are added on after the finish. Why there is such a large delta of opinion regarding stand down penalties issued on the spot, makes me feel uncomfortable knowing that the competitor feels he has no recourse, as his clock has not stopped and those in his age group have therefore, “an unfair advantage.” With a variable time penalty added on to a final finish time, this allows the opportunity of an infraction noted by a referee, to be debriefed and judged upon by the Head Referee. This process, as most do not know, is where the Head Referee becomes the penalized competitors’ best friend. It is during the debrief that the HR, becomes the advocate of the competitor and contests the validity if you will, of the referee’s duly noted infraction. If there is a reasonable doubt by the HR, the penalty is then disallowed.

What makes this process proper is that the clock is not stopped during the course of play and the variable time penalty is not added to a final time. If one does not have this proper due course of debrief, there is no possible way to remove the time lost on the field of play.

Documents such as the Competitive rules that USAT has taken years and years to develop, have the envy and praise of many international National Federations, because they work and offer every competitor a fair and equal chance to compete in their relative group.

Well from my very limited triathlon experience, “blatant” is a relative word. You may be sizing up the rider in front of you, trying to figure the best/safest way by them as they sway back and forth on the road. You get picked off by the officials who call it “blatant drafting”. You called it a “safety survey”.

From my 9.5 years as a strokes and turns judge, you either tagged the wall or you didn’t. Blatant has no place or meaning.

In sports where the target is a moving object, I think there must be some objectivity. In sports where there is a line, a wall etc. there is no place for objectivity. Having said that, the call is still made by a human who depends on his/her eyes to make the call and if the call is even the least bit “iffy”, tie goes to the runner and the swimmer gets away with it.

J

4

Actually, I don’t think your swimming argument holds much water. The rules in swimming are very clearly stated and, for the most part, really easy to monitor.

If you aren’t touching with two hands in breast or fly, I’m sorry, but that’s kind of silly. You deserve the DQ. The same with leaving the block early.

If you’re that Japanese guy in Athens with the questionable dolphin kick off the wall in the breast race, that’s another issue… one that deserves close scrutiny.

To make allowances for every infraction would create a whole mess of bureacracy and complexity that undermine the spirit of the sport.

5

By the way, I meant to note. During this years Ontario high school champs the girls winning free relay team had a member go off the blocks early and not get caught. A quick talk amongst themselve afterward and they gave the medals back.

J

6

The swimming arguement does hold much water, you are DQ’d after you finish and not before, as the “no touch” is scrutinized and reviewed by officials.

There is no stop and go “if” there is a no touch. The competitor does have a chance to appeal (this might the be section that holds little water).

7

I think there are two points that are not really being discussed:

  1. In most sports infractions of the rules are dealt with immediately, even in cases in which an infraction is left to a ref’s/judge’s opinion (consider fouls in basketball, soccer, football, etc…). Why should triathlon be any different?

  2. Most of the arguments against a stand-down and for “due process”, are made from the perspective that one is worried about being wrongfully penalized. Unfortunately I believe the much larger problem in our sport is not the wrongful accusation of innocent competitors, it is that blatant cheaters are allowed to go unpunished.

I for one am in support of stand-downs as it physically marks the cheaters for all to see. Perhaps not only the penalty, but also the shame will help reduce the temptation to cheat. If that means that I am at greater risk of being wrongfully accused myself, so be it. I am willing to make that trade off, mostly because I am confident that I obey the rules, including a margin for error.

8

Actually if the competitor misses the wall all together, they may come back and touch. So long as they don’t push off the bottom in the direction of competition doing it.

J

9

At either oral argument or in his opinion on the ban on golf carts at USPGA events, Justice Scalia said something along the lines that all rules in sports are somewhat arbitrary. I think that the reason for a drastic penalty is to make people follow the rules. It seems to be part of the skill of long jumping or the throws to do them without exceeding the exact limits that are specified.

The rules in swimming that you mention are fairly clear. If you leave early in a relay, you are DQed. It would be practically impossible to add exactly as much as you left early. Even if you could, that would not be fair because the first team that touches the wall should win. The same problem is also true in the field events where you could not accurately determine how far competitors are over lines. Even if you could, how much time do you want to spend doing that instead of having just a simple rule to follow and enforce? Besides, if you follow the rules and jump before the line, should the distance between the line and your foot be added to your jump? If not, then there is a large disadvantage to trying to follow the rules.

I think that the breaststroke rule is also clear, and it has also been clear since I was a 10 and under (around 1975) that everyone really pushes that rule to the limit because of how hard it is to see if you are breaking the rule. The Japanese breaststroker should have been DQed if the officials could see the infraction from above the water. If not, then he bent the rules to his advantage, which is also part of the sport. Just like spending as much time as possible in the draft while passing people on the bike in triathlons.

10

Isn’t the rule in relays that if you leave early you can go back to the wall and start from the wall? I seem to recall that being the case when I was a young age grouper, but my memory has not improved with age. Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone?

11

It’s in the FINA rulebook that you can, though I’m not familiar with it in a American context. But since there are 4-5 different national rulebooks in the US (National Federation/high school, NCAA, USS, YMCA, the odd FINA meet …) and countless local variations, that was probably in the books somewhere.

12

who’s Rosie Jones?

13

She’s a golfer. He meant Rosie Ruiz.

14

Some sports allow the play to continue, then enforce. Swimming, track and field, cycling, running. Others, usually game sports stop and inforce on the spot. ie baseball, hoops,soccer, football.

Whatever the sport the rules are defined. There are some grey areas, but in swimming, the field events in track, golf. If you don’t follow the rules you are in violation.

There is a lot of sports with grey areas like strike zones, NBA traveling, drafting in triathlons that are hard to call accurately all the time. I have felt I have been called on a few questionable drafting calls in my life, but sometimes you have to just deal with it.

15

“a triathlete who acknowledges that they did not read the competitive rules,”

Just this happened to me at IMNZ in 2004. At the race briefing I was perusing the rule book and noted that the “Julie Moss” rule was in effect (ie, no crawling)

During the marathon, I noticed a woman that had some sort of problem, had stopped to get her knees wrapped so she could crawl for some distance (not sure if she was near the end of lap 1 or 2 of the run)

I came on here and stated I believed she’d broken the rules and should be DQ’d. I suffered the wrath of many here for being a bastard and chastised that I should admire her dedication instead of being a dick. Anyway, the long and short of it was that it appears (I haven’t checked IM North American rule) that the Julie Moss has been recinded. It has not (or had not at IMNZ’04) so therefore she had broken the rules. NOne of the people giving me grief had actually read the rules, but rather were arguing the sense of the rule.

READ the rules, follow the rules, go to heaven. Simple eh?

16

IMH has had exemption to USA Triathlon Competitive Rule 6.1 for as long as I can remember. To my knowledge, no other USAT-sanctioned IM race had one, but I could be wrong. Global Triathlon Group rules specifically allow it, however, so you may soon crawl in New Zealand.

David

17

My bad. Rosie Ruiz not Jones would have won the Boston Marathon if Slowtwitch had been a running forum and taken on USTF and BAC instead of USAT and WTC.

Bob Sigerson

18

There is a lot of sports with grey areas like strike zones, NBA traveling, drafting in triathlons that are hard to call accurately all the time.

I have to respond since you mentioned NBA travelling, which is a real pet pieve of mine. There is really no grey area involved with travelling the rules are extremely black and white. The problem is that the refs simply do not call it, and they do not call it because the average fan would not understand it, which would diminish the “show” which ultimately diminishes the money. The players know this and thus stretch things to the limit of what of the refs will allow. As someone who understands the rules, I find the fact that I could call travelling at least twice on every possession diminishes the show, but I am sure I am in a minority.

Drafting is the same. The rules are black and white. The size of the drafting zone is well defined, as well as the time to pass. If you are worried about a marshall not having an eye for guessing your distance then stay a bit further back just to be sure. If you feel the guy ahead looks unsafe and you want to “evaluate” the situation before passing, then just do so from outside the draft zone. This is really not that hard. You just have to WANT to ride legally, and you have to pay attention out there on the road.

19

“Drafting is the same. The rules are black and white. The size of the drafting zone is well defined, as well as the time to pass.”

While this is true, I think the argument hinges on the fact that there is currently no accurate way for either ref or competitor to accurately judge where the draft zone is. Imagine if tennis were played without any lines on the court and the ref had to judge whether a ball is in or out. The fact that the dimensions of the court are clearly defined in the rules does not make it any easier to judge fairly.

Haim

20

“Drafting is the same. The rules are black and white. The size of the drafting zone is well defined, as well as the time to pass.”

While this is true, I think the argument hinges on the fact that there is currently no accurate way for either ref or competitor to accurately judge where the draft zone is. Imagine if tennis were played without any lines on the court and the ref had to judge whether a ball is in or out. The fact that the dimensions of the court are clearly defined in the rules does not make it any easier to judge fairly.

Haim

And if I was playing tennis on such a court I would make sure I hit the ball to place where there was no doubt.

While a ref or a rider might not be able to tell the difference between 6 and 7 meters out on the road, I doubt either would mistake 10 meters for anything less than 7.