Rules violation question
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2013-07-08 12:53 PM |
Veteran 134 | Subject: Rules violation question My question concerns Rule 7.2 Placement of Equipment, quoted below: "All participants shall place equipment only in the properly designated and individually assigned bicycle corral and shall at all time keep their equipment confined to such properly designated areas. Any violation of this Section shall result in a variable time penalty." At A Tri in the Buff (Evangola State Park, NY) this past weekend, a friend of mine was penalized 2 minutes under rule 7.2. He might have contacted the RD today for clarification but he had not done so previously, so we do not know why he was penalized. But we theorize, and I'd like to know whether the theory holds any water. The theory is that he was penalized for donning his biking shoes after removing his bike from the transition area. He prefers to run barefoot from the corral to the vicinity of the mount line, then put his shoes on, so that he does not have to run in his biking shoes. This is what he did this weekend. Now, to my thinking, his action does not violate the rule quoted above, as he at all times (to our knowledge) had his gear either in his possession or in his transition spot. Others in our group say that his action is a rule violation, because putting on his shoes is "what the transition area is for." My thinking is inasmuch as some people do not put their feet in their shoes until after they are already riding, it cannot be a rules violation to leave transition barefoot. Nor is it required that the shoes be attached to the bike, as others don their shoes and run to the mount line. Nor is it illegal to carry gear out of transition - the bike must after all be removed from the transition spot, and I think I could run out carrying my sunglasses, if I chose to. So, why could it possibly be illegal to carry his shoes out? So, that is the whole story; I am interested to know the thoughts of BT on whether our "theory" might be correct. Thanks, Scott |
|
2013-07-08 12:56 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Rules violation question that theory is wrong, it is perfetly legal to do so. he probably racked in the wrong spot, or his stuff was strewn about in a manner in which the referee thought was impeding other athletes. |
2013-07-08 12:57 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Rules violation question My guess would be that your friend either: 1) Replaced their bike improperly on the rack, or; 2) Their gear either started or finished outside their rack space. Shane |
2013-07-08 1:01 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Rules violation question
Doesn't sound like the wording of the rule fits the crime very well. My guess is they wanted to penalize him for what he did and found the closest rule they could. And yes, I think he deserved a penalty. Imagine if everyone did what he did. The start line would be a nightmare with all sorts of people sitting down or bending over to put their shoes on blocking the line. Would be good if the RD could contact him and explain the reason for the penalty and inform him why he should change his methods, but that might turn into a lot of work for the RD. |
2013-07-08 1:25 PM in reply to: Aarondb4 |
Veteran 134 | Subject: RE: Rules violation question Well, I have to say that if Aaron is right, then the officials should be sanctioned, somehow.. If there is no rule against what Chris did, then applying some "nearly-broken" rule is completely arbitrary and prejudicial. I do agree that his actions could cause problems for others, but inconvenient and illegal are two entirely different things. Scott |
2013-07-08 1:33 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Rules violation question Originally posted by scott319 Well, I have to say that if Aaron is right, then the officials should be sanctioned, somehow.. If there is no rule against what Chris did, then applying some "nearly-broken" rule is completely arbitrary and prejudicial. I do agree that his actions could cause problems for others, but inconvenient and illegal are two entirely different things. So what indication do you have that your friend was penalized for that? As I said, much more likely a racking or equipment issue. I would guess that it most likely was that he returned his bike to the rack with the wheel down on the wrong side of the rack. This is pure speculation but I've seen many athletes do this at races as they don't understand how their rack space works. If the bike was racked properly before and after the bike, then I suspect it was due to equipment not be placed or returned neatly to the proper transition space. Shane |
|
2013-07-08 1:33 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Rules violation question |
2013-07-08 1:38 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Subject: RE: Rules violation question I doubt the violation was because the OP's friend was carrying his shoes. If that were to incur a penalty, my guess is the rules official who made the call would have told the OP's friend right then and there. I agree with others that it's likely a result of the OP's friend not placing his transition items within his space. A penalty that can be given while the athlete is long gone out of transition while an official is walking through and noticing if items are not placed in their respective areas. Maybe the OP's friend didn't notice it when they came back to transition because the official grabbed whatever may have been out of place and put it away for the athlete. |
2013-07-08 1:41 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Veteran 134 | Subject: RE: Rules violation question Agreed, Shane. i do not know why he was penalized. As I noted, it is just a theory. Scott |
2013-07-08 1:50 PM in reply to: scott319 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Rules violation question Originally posted by scott319 Well, I have to say that if Aaron is right, then the officials should be sanctioned, somehow.. If there is no rule against what Chris did, then applying some "nearly-broken" rule is completely arbitrary and prejudicial. I do agree that his actions could cause problems for others, but inconvenient and illegal are two entirely different things. Scott As we are all just speculating anyway. The rule says they should "place" their equipment in the transition area and only there. If he stopped to put his shoes on he had to have placed something near the start line to do it unless he is very talented. He either "placed" his bike on the ground or against something. Or he leaned the bike on himself and "placed" either one or both shoes on the ground before he put them on his feet. If his shoes were on his feet or attached to the bike he would not have "placed" any gear anywhere. If that was the case the ref should have told him right then to not do it. But there is a chance there was a volunteer or something that saw it, wasn't sure about it, mentally stored the bib number then told an official later who then handed down the penalty. Probably a bit of a stretch but the theory is workable and the rule could apply. |
Drafting Violation Question Pages: 1 2 | |||
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|