Updated IUF Rulebook - Flatland Concern

[olarf]

As I was a part of the rulebook committee some words from me
We welcome any comments while and also after the process and we try to keep them all in mind! Also there are a lot of active riders always part of the rulebook committee and a lot of very experienced hosts too and all of them invest an increadible mountain of work in it every two years. Also we all know that we make mistakes, wrong decissions and forget things that should have been changed. Imagine there are 100 pages with rules and many people start to propose a lot of changes and discuss about them. So you get 10 to 40 emails a day with new posts. Finaly there is a deadline and every 2 years many threads are still open or even not started when the end comes close. Independent from several good changes we have in the 2012 rules, we have that reorganisation now which provide us single chapters for every discipline which was also a proposal and after all agreed a lot of work for John to manage it.
Flatland rules for example was spreaded over 13 different places before and now its one chapter, easy to read and also easy to see possible problems. In case of "That sentence" it is now more then clear that it is very disliked and weak and this fact will be respected for sure.
We will also pay attention to this discussion while the Judges workshop at Unicon to make sure that they get no wrong impression from the rules and judge Flatland as it should be judged.
However, also those upcoming judges are humans and it is still possible that we will have a result at Unicon that not fit to the audience opinion but it will be a result that has to be respected because all judges do their best to be fair and neutral as always.
Also it should been point out clear that so far only one time a rider complain a strange way against judges, all those Flatlanders are usually 100% respectfull to each others and to the judges, they just love their sport and I deeply respect it and also that they don't want to have it affected by some mistakes / unclear point is rules.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by unigoat

At this point, the best we've got is UNICON, NAUCC, EUC, and some other events. We need to promote Muni and Distance at local events, but I can say up front that Distance racing is going to be the hard sell. USA Cycling doesn't understand distance unicycling. Even trying to use their courses is very tricky because of the non-pack nature that develops with only one or 2 gears on a uni. Their whole system of racing with pelotons and a rolling pack enclosure is foreign to unicycling. Due to the nature of logistics, insurance, etc. I'd be willing to bet that most road racing (in the USA) is under the USA Cycling umbrella.

Mountain biking may be an easier sell, but even then most standard courses out this way are too hard or too long for all but a few unicyclists. Races longer than 2 hours are out of the question for many people who Muni. That is, races that aren't nice walks in the woods with some sessioning in between.

I think unis can definitely join in on certain kinds of road bike events; we've had success getting a heat at a criterium, and I think that could be a regular thing. You're right that road races would just string out too much to be plausible; the exception is pure hill climbs, which we have a lot of experience of.

Most mountain bike events actually work well; we've done 24-hour races, circuit races, and cyclocross, and they all were fine. Generally those are more 29er/Coker MUni rather than full-on 24" MUni; the latter could be done on something more like a downhill course, although those don't tend to be ideal for 24" either.

[napalm]

The thread has been taken on an interesting tangent- not so much specifically about the concern Julia had about flatland judging, but about the ability of the IUF committie to best represent the intrests of the divergent unicycling disciplines.

I have a few comments regarding the last little exchange between Tholub and Onewheeldave.

@Tholub- I do agree with you that I feel there is more of a fraternity between mountain unicyclists and mountain bikers than there is between Muni riders and say, freestyle of flat riders. For the last 2 years I have pretty much exclusively ridden with mountainbikers and completed heaps of 50-110km XC and All mountain MTB events on my Geared 24 and now, G26" Muni. The sport has become more specialized and it is no longer the case that the 'competant' and 'expert' categories of riders are catered to by the same events. For example, i know you thought the XC course at the last UNICON was too difficult. On the other hand, I thought it was of good difficulty but was way too short. These concerns are really only going to be felt within the road/ muni crowd- where course difficulty is a variable that will change with every UNICON committie and the event they plan.

That being said, I think it is silly to disregard the whole IUF system simply because it has not been able to keep up with the growing intrests and new styles and standards of unicycling. Surely a better solution would be to have a more inclusive and open consideration of riders concerns within the international organisation than trying to get the biking world to include us (which frankly is never going to happen at any UCI world championship level).

For example- I have been riding for a decade now, spent a lot of time going to national and international events, and being part of the discourse on these forums and others. Up until this thread, I have never heard about the IUF rule book committie or the role that it plays. For me, it seems that for too long, a small group of individuals have held all the decision making powers. If they cry martyrdom for the workload they voluntarily take to make it happen, I would counter by asking what they have done to make it accessible for other interested parties to become part of the process?

If things continue the way they are- where the organisation lags behind the progressing standard of riding, you will end up with people dropping out of the sport or choosing not to compete (surely a sign of failure on the IUFs part).

I hope for the flatlanders sake that this issue gets dealt with properly. I know a lot of people are making big sacrifices to make it to Italy, it would be a real shame to see a potentially great competiton marred by some unwieldy bureaucratic process.

As for me, I'm running out of options. My discipine is wholly dependent on the course that is set. I'm not sure if i'll ever get one that is at a standard that pushes the elite riders. It is more cost effective and rewarding for me to race against bikes than it is to race against unicycles. This UNICON in Italy may be my last one.

mark

[tholub]

Originally Posted by napalm

@Tholub- I do agree with you that I feel there is more of a fraternity between mountain unicyclists and mountain bikers than there is between Muni riders and say, freestyle of flat riders. For the last 2 years I have pretty much exclusively ridden with mountainbikers and completed heaps of 50-110km XC and All mountain MTB events on my Geared 24 and now, G26" Muni. The sport has become more specialized and it is no longer the case that the 'competant' and 'expert' categories of riders are catered to by the same events. For example, i know you thought the XC course at the last UNICON was too difficult. On the other hand, I thought it was of good difficulty but was way too short. These concerns are really only going to be felt within the road/ muni crowd- where course difficulty is a variable that will change with every UNICON committie and the event they plan.

That being said, I think it is silly to disregard the whole IUF system simply because it has not been able to keep up with the growing intrests and new styles and standards of unicycling. Surely a better solution would be to have a more inclusive and open consideration of riders concerns within the international organisation than trying to get the biking world to include us (which frankly is never going to happen at any UCI world championship level).

The issue isn't the IUF rulebook system, it's with the available air time for events of interest to people outside of freestyle. UNICON is expensive to attend and expensive to travel to, and if you're primarily a MUni rider, you'll get approximately 2 hours of competition in a 10-day-long event. For distance you'll get 3 hours. The courses may or may not be interesting to you--as you know, the downhillers in New Zealand hated the downhill course, and I thought the XC course would have been more appropriate as downhill (it was harder). Dozens of non-MUni riders compete in the MUni events because it's the MUni day, so you have kids on 20" gym unicycles putting themselves at risk and creating obstacles.

In terms of actual MUni, events like the Moab MUniFest are more important than multi-sport national events or UNICON. In terms of competition, the Grischa MUni Challenge is more important than UNICON XVI's MUni, which is on 7/22 and 7/28, with a week of basketball, hockey, freestyle and track in between.

The problem for the organizers is that they have 1000 freestyle riders and 50 MUni riders. In that context MUni is never going to be favored. So the best riders don't show up and you have "world championships" determined by who does.

As for me, I'm running out of options. My discipine is wholly dependent on the course that is set. I'm not sure if i'll ever get one that is at a standard that pushes the elite riders. It is more cost effective and rewarding for me to race against bikes than it is to race against unicycles. This UNICON in Italy may be my last one.

You would definitely be better off doing the Grischa MUni Challenge than doing the UNICON events. In terms of what I'd like to see IUF or USA do, it would be to support more diverse events like Grischa or Moab (or EUC for that matter) instead of focusing on a huge event which by its nature will draw freestylers and a smattering of others.

[johnfoss]

These responses are on the topic of Rulebook Committee. I might do another one on the also-interesting topic of alternate ways to do unicycling championships but since I'm out of town it may take a few days.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

You seem to be saying that the rules in and it can't now be changed until the next round of the committee rule making cycle?

Pretty much. I would say that it's too late to change the Rulebook, but it's not too late for event directors/chief judges to modify, or clarify, how things will be done for the immediate competition. They don't have free reign to just do whatever they want, but a situation like this one is a great example of where some rulebook language needs to be clarified, to make sure everyone is interpreting it in the intended way. Or at least in the way intended by that event director.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

maybe you should listen to spencer- you've just quoted him as saying the sentence should not be there anymore.

I don't need to quote him; his writing is in this same thread. Yes, he doesn't like that sentence. He did at the time, as evidenced by his comment when that addition to the Flatland text was proposed (and his Yes vote). I still believe that sentence, though poorly crafted, is appropriate for the present time. But it's not up to me. The Rulebook Committee is a democratic process, and we don't like to go against what the committee has decided. Instead we fix it next time around, and when necessary, make adjustments "on the fly" at current competitions.

In this case there's nothing to adjust; nothing broken. It just needs for that sentence to be explained so that everyone understands what was meant by it. That is, that all tricks on a flat surface are valid, long as they fit in with the other things the Flatland rules want to see. In other words, 10 meters of stand-up backward wheel walk would be bad, as it would take forever to do.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

I think the flatlanders here would be quite satisfied if you just stated something along the lines of 'on reflection, and, in hindsight, the sentence was open to misinterpretation, and, while it can't be removed/rewritten here and now, you'll endeavour to ensure that, at the earliest opportunity, it will be.'?

I thought I more or less already did that, but I appreciate your feedback that maybe I didn't communicate it very well...

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

That way they feel listened to and I think that's all they want- that the people/organisation representing their sport is actually able to listen to them.

I am only one person, but I've definitely been listening.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

I think flatlanders are just wanting their sport handled by organisations who, they feel, understand it.

The rule-creators must not only understand the events they are describing, but must also understand how to make rules that will work. This is, obviously, an imperfect process. This is why we're always making changes, most of which are improvements. The Flatland rules were conceived by Flatland riders, and helped along with rule-writers that assisted in the explaining of how things are supposed to be done.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The organisation that represents ... should be the one that can best understand it and work with it- if that's to be the IUF, then they need to understand fully what flatland is about, and, not want it purely cos it's done on one wheel.

I think the IUF understands it pretty well. If another sports organization out there understands it better, I don't think I've heard of them. This is why "the IUF" created Flatland rules. Without them you can't have a Flatland competition.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Rulemakers need to accept that it's perfectly OK for others to comment on, or critisise, decisions made by rulemakers/organisers, despite not actually wanting to become a rulemaker/organiser themselves.

-- Or not accept it; it's not going to stop happening. It did not start happening with Flatland; I think it started with the rules for Unicon I.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

...there are 2 opposite types of people- those who are natural organisers who fit in well with committee structures and all the red tape/excessive complications that go along with that, and, many of the flatlanders who, tending to be of similar mentality to many skaters, find committees/rules to be a necessary thing, to be tolerated, but kept at a distance from.

And Flatland being such a young sport, almost no one from that second group existed yet. Finally Spencer came forward and took the lead on the original Flat rules. He learned how to work within the existing structure and then we had something that could be used with a Flatland competition.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Unfortunatley, one of the negative traits of such committees is that their stock response to critisisms can tend to be- 'why don't you get involved and join the committee' (carrying the implication that, otherwise, just shut up ) etc.

Yeah, I guess it could sound that way. But it doesn't start with 'just shut up' or 'why don't you get involved.' It starts with explaining the situation (see the earlier part of this thread). Then is often followed by a seeming lack of understanding of all of that, which eventually leads to the responses we're making around now...

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

As for the 'tough' part, we'll have to wait and see won't we? Because I'm guessing some of those involved on the committee may be interested in the opinions of the flatland riders on the rules, and will probably be taking a look at this thread before the next revision?

Who on the committee is being accused of not being interested in the opinions of Flatland riders?

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

The riders have heard the defenses of the sentence on this thread, they still think it's innapropriate, that should be the end of the story really.

Nope. As we've covered, this rulebook is already done. Riders are justifiably annoyed, having not been aware of the Rulebook Committee process (two years ago) and how to participate. Also that we don't have it publicly posted so people can see what the Rulebook Committee actually talked about. Hopefully Leo can get that up we everyone can look.

Also, I have a feeling that many of the Flatland riders expressed their opinions about the sentence in question without necessarily reading the rest of the Flatland rules. In other words, they may be taking it out of context. This is why we have judges to pick the winners, and a Rulebook Committee to write the rules. They are expected to be knowledgeable on any parts of the rulebook they vote on, and it is expected they are familiar with the whole event before casting their votes.

This committee must be responsive to the suggestions/ideas/complaints of the rider community as well. The idea is for committee members to represent the rider community as they know it (some are specialists in only one or two unicycling areas).

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

I'm sure they don't want to hear this 'if you want to have a say then you've got to join the committee/help actually write the book' line- they've expressed their opinion, that's all that's necessary.

Yeah, but this stuff is all done by volunteers. We have to recruit! One of the best ways to attract motivated members is when they have strong feelings about how something should be done. They often make the best members. A good Rulebook Committee member is someone who is energetic, likes to explain his or her opinion, and especially tries their best to represent all unicyclists (as applies to the event in question), not just a sub-group, such as the people in their home country. When discussing Flatland rules, the idea is to best represent the Flat riders of the world, in a way that will hopefully help grow the event.

Originally Posted by tholub

They don't need to join the committee, but they need to participate in the process, not criticize it afterwards.

Or both. Criticizing afterward is one of the best ways to get feedback, which should get noted and brought up at the next round of changes. You're not going to stop people from criticizing after it's too late; that's when most people see the rules, and when they're ramping up for the competition so they're interested. It's a lot harder to find interested people after Unicon is over.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

So, all in all, it would seem, a good result for everyone and a clear case of critisism bringing about some good.

Absolutely. There is no way that sentence is not going to get either repaired or removed on the next round. "Repaired" if it is felt people still think "Freestyle" tricks are not "Flatland" tricks. Removed if the committee believes this is no longer a problematic issue for riders or judges.

Originally Posted by olarf

We welcome any comments while and also after the process and we try to keep them all in mind! Also there are a lot of active riders always part of the rulebook committee and a lot of very experienced hosts too and all of them invest an increadible mountain of work in it every two years.

Yes. But complainers don't care about this when they're complaining.

Originally Posted by olarf

Imagine there are 100 pages with rules and many people start to propose a lot of changes and discuss about them. So you get 10 to 40 emails a day with new posts. Finaly there is a deadline and every 2 years many threads are still open or even not started when the end comes close.

He's not making that up, that's pretty accurate for our last round!

[Julia B]

Awhh, tholub you're starting to remind me of leo

Originally Posted by tholub

I will make the observation that you could have participated in the drafting of the rulebook if you were really concerned about what it says. Criticizing is easy; writing rulebooks is not.

You can claim "that's not fair" all you want and that's not going to change it.

Originally Posted by tholub

Criticizers need to accept that if their criticisms come after the rulebook has been finalized, the rulebook won't change. If they want their input into the rulebook, they need to be involved in the rulebook committee.

Tough. Either you participate in writing the rulebook or someone else writes it. As I said earlier, criticizing is easy, writing rulebooks is hard.

Originally Posted by tholub

They don't need to join the committee, but they need to participate in the process, not criticize it afterwards.

Well, it's not all that's necessary if you want the rule to change for UNICON XVI. To get the rule changed for UNICON XVI, you would have had to make comments before the rulebook was finalized. Making comments now (to the IUF, not to unicyclist.com) will get your input into the rulebook for UNICON XVII (though the rules committee may or may not agree with you).

The IUF sent out a letter in the last Unicon newsletter asking for protests. http://unicon16.it/download.php?file...=Statement+IUF

Regardless of that, have you ever tried to get involved with the IUF? It's not clear even where to begin. But I certainly am interested in participating in the rulebook committee.

Originally Posted by tholub

Coming here and throwing a tantrum over a sentence that is likely to have absolutely no effect on the judging of the competition is not productive in any case. Unless throwing a tantrum is the goal.

I would say that the importance of the issue is reflected in the 40+ people who've taken their time to give constructive and pertinent suggestions. If you have any constructive or pertinent suggestions, I'd be more than happy to respond to them.

[Julia B]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

No, silly. I'm saying use the rules we have now. My question for you was why would Freestyle specialists win? Simply because there are more of them should not make them better Flat riders than Flat specialists. Or should it?

Nah, of course it shouldn't. But a very good point was brought up on facebook by Christian Huriwai. "Fact is, freestyle has been around for a long long time... Flatland has only been around since the Defect era. If FREESTYLE tricks were judged with equal weight, any good freestyler could come to a flatland competition and win. Because the top freestylers in the world are far better at freestyle then the top flatlanders are at flatland."

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Yes, except those two parts you added.

The problem is, in the little that the sentence says, there is too much that it doesn't say.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I've done an extensive amount of writing in this thread, and somewhere back there I'm pretty sure I explained how the IUF's rulebook process works. Rule changes are made by a committee. Proposals are made, then discussed, then often edited by their makers, and finally taken to a vote. This committee process is open for several months, to give plenty of time to discuss things, do counter-proposals and otherwise try to do as complete a job as possible.

However, at some point the committee part has to end, so the changes can be edited into the main document and a new rulebook produced. That's what we're talking about here, the 2012 IUF Rulebook. Which is done. A large number of people put an incredible amount of their time and effort into it. Our system does not allow for changes at this point. The idea is to put out the rules (ultimately with more lead time), get them translated, then let everyone have plenty of time to train with them, so all are on the same page at competition time.

I thought the letter sent out meant that the rules were open for suggestions and then would be finalized May 1st. I brought the issue up now, because I thought there was still time, but it appears that's not the case.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

But it's really not an issue in this case since your worry is about interpretation, not actual rules/judging criteria. This is where the Flatland Chief Judge (or Director) comes in. He will coach all the judges on how to interpret any rules that are in question, which is obviously going to include the evil sentence. His interpretation will be basically what I've been trying to explain all along. Or as Spencer may have said it best, "to not discriminate against Freestyle-type tricks".

You are correct, which is where the Chief Judge comes in. He (Olaf, in this case) will explain what is meant by that, and the rest of the rules, so the judges don't interpret it the wrong way.

Great! I actually knew almost nothing about the how judges were selected and trained before this thread, but it sounds like this will be handled well for this unicon.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Definitely the lead creators of the Flatland rules were Flatland riders. Some other "old fuddy-duddies" like myself helped them with structure and writing, but not on how they wanted the event to work. We asked questions that needed answering in the rules, such as "what's a battle?" It was assumed everyone would know how to structure one, for example.

By being a good writer. Good rules require good writing, good explanations, good logic. Our rulebook is anything but perfect, but those writing skills work in any discipline. I can help Spencer explain stuff without being a Flat expert. I've also done the same with Hockey rules for 20 years, and I barely know how that game works. I don't need to be an expert, I'm just helping the Hockey folks explain things in a way that bridges the gap between German-English and English English, for example. As an experienced writer, I'm sure Tom could do the same. And so could you; your writing is exceptional for someone your age.

For the polishing and phrasing I agree, one doesn't have to know much about the discipline. But in voting for the content it seems like a "core group" of maybe 5-10 people that have a lot of experience with flatland would be more effective than the entire 40 people voting, who might not know what they're deciding.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Umpteenth it is! And the question has been answered, in this thread. We have already gone 360 degrees around the world on this topic, and now you're starting a second rotation. I answered it again in detail a while back. Please refer to my responses if you need to ask it again.

If you mean this, it doesn't really seem that the evil sentence was meant to do anything, except start a discussion disagreeing with it.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

The purpose of that sentence is embodied in this thread. Without that sentence, this conversation would not have happened, and you might still have the same thoughts about Freestylers in Flat competitions that you had when you started the thread. Thanks to you, we've had a great discussion where a lot of people had a chance to really think about what should and should not be allowed/restricted in a Flatland competition.

Without that sentence being in there, many people would have read right through the main definition (any tricks done on a flat surface) without realizing it really means any trick. Then this conversation would again not come up until it was too late; during or after the next competition.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Flatland and Freestyle were not separated. First there was Freestyle, which has been around for a long time. Flatland was created as its own event, by Flatland riders. But since Freestyle (and Standard Skill) already had detailed rules and a lot of history, it's hard not to mention them when talking about Flatland.

Sorry, the verb I should have used is are. Flatland and freestyle are separated.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I'm pretty sure Tom thought that was a Flatland-style trick. Which it is, though you guys may call it something else. Whatever it's called in Flat, the idea of the evil sentence is that it's equal to a Crank Roll (assuming they are indeed the same trick). I think Crank Roll is listed in the Standard Skills list, but don't care to look it up.

Crank roll is used exclusively by people who don't ride flatland to try to describe flatland. It's like saying "wheelwalk" and meaning a really easy trick, but accidentally describing everything from wheelwalking to stand up backwards one foot wheelwalking. Except "crank roll" isn't even a trick.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

An interesting interpretation. The description you cited is trying to explain to judges that there are many ways to do what some might consider one trick. The same is true in Flatland. Only an experienced judge may know the difference.

But I believe your statement is untrue. Today, Flatland is much easier to understand than Freestyle. I challenge anyone to take a look at the (2012) rules for both and tell me which one they have an easier time understanding. Most people won't even finish the Freestyle section. They don't need to, since it's pretty obvious.

You mentioned that the Freestyle and Standard Skill sections were much longer. Yes, they are. This does not indicate depth of knowledge, it indicates complexity of judging systems. Perhaps too complex. So complex that the audience at a Freestyle competition probably doesn't really know what the judges are judging on anymore. IMHO, neither do the judges, but that's another topic.

The flatland section doesn't clarify the different treyflip variations and their judging though. I mean, it's pretty important that treyflips, inward smallflips, fullvarialflips, and fulloutbacksideflips are judged differently. But in the freestyle section it's pretty clear that the IUF rulebook committee understands freestyle well enough to name many tricks and their minute variations. So it seems that freestyle is better known.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I am only one person, but I've definitely been listening.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Yeah, I guess it could sound that way. But it doesn't start with 'just shut up' or 'why don't you get involved.' It starts with explaining the situation (see the earlier part of this thread). Then is often followed by a seeming lack of understanding of all of that, which eventually leads to the responses we're making around now...

Nope. As we've covered, this rulebook is already done. Riders are justifiably annoyed, having not been aware of the Rulebook Committee process (two years ago) and how to participate. Also that we don't have it publicly posted so people can see what the Rulebook Committee actually talked about. Hopefully Leo can get that up we everyone can look.

Yeah, but this stuff is all done by volunteers. We have to recruit! One of the best ways to attract motivated members is when they have strong feelings about how something should be done. They often make the best members. A good Rulebook Committee member is someone who is energetic, likes to explain his or her opinion, and especially tries their best to represent all unicyclists (as applies to the event in question), not just a sub-group, such as the people in their home country. When discussing Flatland rules, the idea is to best represent the Flat riders of the world, in a way that will hopefully help grow the event.

Yes! I want to get involved! Where do I sign up? How? When can I start?

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Julia B

Awhh, tholub you're starting to remind me of leo

Harsh.

The IUF sent out a letter in the last Unicon newsletter asking for protests. http://unicon16.it/download.php?file...=Statement+IUF

That letter is linked from the most recent Unicon XVI Newsletter, in an article that tells a little more about the new rulebook. You can see all of those newsletters here:
http://unicon16.it/205.html

The letter is from IUF President Ryan Woessner to Willi Ploner and the Union XVI Organizing Committee, announcing the rulebook. It includes the quote "As such, all rules included in this document are to be utilized at UNICON XVI in Brixen, Italy, from 20 – 31 July 2012." But it also invites people to make formal complaints to the IUF Board until May 1, so you still have time. Ryan offers his email address as the point of contact (found in the letter). It does not indicate what may be done with those complaints or protests, but either way, that can be one's first step to getting formally involved.

Regardless of that, have you ever tried to get involved with the IUF? It's not clear even where to begin. But I certainly am interested in participating in the rulebook committee.

Begin on the IUF homepage (iufinc.org). There is a link to "participate in the committees" (which leads to an outdated listing of committees, but offers a contact email of 'contact' at iufinc.org.

Also, if I choose to remain in charge of the Rulebook Committee after Unicon I will already know about you. Anyone else reading this thread is encouraged to contact me if you would like to join, and I'll add you to a contact list for when we have information to send out.

In addition, once the committee gets going again, I will encourage the IUF Webmasters to put up information about the committee(s), how to contact them and how to view their work in progress. The proposal-and-discussion part should be open to the public.

Originally Posted by Julia B

...a very good point was brought up on facebook by Christian Huriwai. "Fact is, freestyle has been around for a long long time... Flatland has only been around since the Defect era. If FREESTYLE tricks were judged with equal weight, any good freestyler could come to a flatland competition and win. Because the top freestylers in the world are far better at freestyle then the top flatlanders are at flatland."

So far this has not been the case, except on the women's side, which still has less participation. Freestyle riders are good at Freestyle. Though this gives them lots of riding skill, it does not necessarily make them good Flatland riders.

The Flatland competition event was not designed to only showcase a certain style of riding. If it had been, this would be evident in the rules. It purposely is not, for various reasons including the fact that there's no good way to describe those styles without constricting and limiting the event. So the event has been described as "any unicycle skill performed on a flat surface." Much thought went into that.

For those that care to check with earlier versions of IUF Flatland rules, you will notice there is no definition of what Flatland is. Not having a definition is worse, because it leads to worse arguments than what's found in this thread. That's why a definition was added.

So if it's any skill performed on a flat surface, it is clearly an event for any unicyclist who likes to do skills on a flat surface. In other words, it's not "wrong" for Freestyle experts to enter and/or win.

If a subset of the Flatland community thinks it would be a better idea to define Flatland differently, they are welcome to do so. I don't think it's a good idea, as it would force you to restrict what riders can do, and eventually lead to something along the lines of Standard Skill.

I thought the letter sent out meant that the rules were open for suggestions and then would be finalized May 1st. I brought the issue up now, because I thought there was still time, but it appears that's not the case.

It's not May 1 yet. If you haven't contacted Ryan you're running out of time to find out. I'm not on the IUF (or Unicon) Board; I only know what's supposed to happen. Other things could happen. My prediction here is that the Boards will ask the Flatland Director (Olaf Schlote) what he thinks of all this, and that he'll probably say something like "Don't worry, I'll make sure all the judges understand what we're trying to say with the poorly-worded sentence, and that nobody will get the wrong idea." Something like that. The sentence might not even be poorly worded in German (or Italian, or Japanese), they may have done a better job in translation...

For the polishing and phrasing I agree, one doesn't have to know much about the discipline. But in voting for the content it seems like a "core group" of maybe 5-10 people that have a lot of experience with flatland would be more effective than the entire 40 people voting, who might not know what they're deciding.

As unicycling has spread into more disciplines that aren't necessarily watched by everybody, this is more of a concern. The "right" way to handle this is probably by breaking up the committee into groups to match the 8 sections in the new Rulebook. In fact, if we can work it the way I'd like to, it would allow committee members to opt out of any sections they don't have an interest in. They would probably love that! But it might be messy from a programming point of view, so we might be blocked if we don't have someone who can set that up. But hopefully we won't have that problem. This would also allow for more Rulebook Committee members, as some of the sections would have few specialists working on them.

Some people will still want to participate in all aspects of the rulebook, and this will still be encouraged. It is not easy to get people to stick with that long process. I have an interest in all areas of the competition rules, but I don't try to have an opinion on stuff I know nothing about, such as penalties in Hockey. I just vote 'yes' on the proposal if all the hockey experts do.

If you mean this, it doesn't really seem that the evil sentence was meant to do anything, except start a discussion disagreeing with it.

Not exactly, but I could predict one might erupt. We wanted to make it perfectly clear that Flatland was anything a unicyclist could do on flat land, and not to attempt to define a style of riding that would/should defy containment.

The ensuing discussion has not been about disagreeing with it, or has it? Do Flatland riders want a restrictive event, only open to the "Flatland style" of riding, or a wide open event for anything that can be done on flat ground? Perhaps that would be a good question to pose to your active Facebook group, and might give us a better understanding of what those riders really want.

Crank roll is used exclusively by people who don't ride flatland to try to describe flatland.

I tried to find it in the Standard Skills List but it's not there. Only Crank Idle (with variations) and Crank Flip (lots of variations). But it is mentioned, a lot, in these forums. By Street and, uh, Flatland riders. Does the Flatland community have a universally recognized set of skills with names and descriptions? I know there are some out there, but not if any one is official.

The flatland section doesn't clarify the different treyflip variations and their judging though. I mean, it's pretty important that treyflips, inward smallflips, fullvarialflips, and fulloutbacksideflips are judged differently. But in the freestyle section it's pretty clear that the IUF rulebook committee understands freestyle well enough to name many tricks and their minute variations.

In the judging criteria? Only examples are given, not any attempt at an exaustive list of tricks and their multitude variations. Any attempt to do this for Freestyle would be futile, as it would just encourage riders to make up stuff that's not on the list. That's kind of the idea. More so in Flatland than Freestyle, but in both events originality is rewarded.

I think you were thinking of the Standard Skills List. That's for Standard Skill. You are only allowed to do the stuff on that list. No creativity allowed. But that's the point of that event. To compare the exact same skills, with fixed scores, so riders can really compare themselves to one another, even if they were never at the same competition.

So the Flatland event should not attempt to name all tricks, and neither should Freestyle. And tricks should not be counted either, at least not as the sole way of comparing two runs (or performances). This is a current problem with the Freestyle rules. People are trying to count tricks, which takes away from counting the difficulty. Especially since you can't count tricks if you don't agree on when they start and end, or what part of a transition counts as a trick, etc.

So it seems that freestyle is better known.

Duh, it's been around since before the IUF, and Flatland is new.

[Julia B]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Harsh.

I really don't understand why he is being so condescending.

Originally Posted by tholub

Coming here and throwing a tantrum over a sentence that is likely to have absolutely no effect on the judging of the competition is not productive in any case. Unless throwing a tantrum is the goal.

Originally Posted by tholub

Well, what's so special about flatland, then?

Originally Posted by tholub

If Irene comes out and does stomach-on-seat hand wheel walk as her last trick, she deserves a lot of points because that's a freakin' hard trick, and the only reason most flatlanders don't do it is because they can't.

Originally Posted by tholub

Criticizing is easy; writing rulebooks is not.

Originally Posted by tholub

You can claim "that's not fair" all you want and that's not going to change it.

Originally Posted by tholub

Are you volunteering for the rules committee?

Originally Posted by tholub

they need to participate in the process, not criticize it afterwards.

-----------------------------------

Originally Posted by johnfoss

But it also invites people to make formal complaints to the IUF Board until May 1, so you still have time. Ryan offers his email address as the point of contact (found in the letter). It does not indicate what may be done with those complaints or protests, but either way, that can be one's first step to getting formally involved.

That was my plan from the very first post. But then everyone on this thread told me politely (or for some, not-so-politely) that it was finalized and I'd have to wait until after this unicon.

Originally Posted by Julia B

I'm planning to contact the IUF about this, but first I'd like to hear what you think! So please leave your opinion below.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Begin on the IUF homepage (iufinc.org). There is a link to "participate in the committees" (which leads to an outdated listing of committees, but offers a contact email of 'contact' at iufinc.org.

I did see that page, but the committee information was from 2010, the blog hasn't been updated in months, and the forums have a grand total of about 10 posts in the last year. I thought I was on the wrong website.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Also, if I choose to remain in charge of the Rulebook Committee after Unicon I will already know about you. Anyone else reading this thread is encouraged to contact me if you would like to join, and I'll add you to a contact list for when we have information to send out.

Great! I hope I can get added to that list then.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

So far this has not been the case, except on the women's side, which still has less participation. Freestyle riders are good at Freestyle. Though this gives them lots of riding skill, it does not necessarily make them good Flatland riders.

But their superior "riding skill" should technically win the competition, because flatland is any trick done on a flat surface. The problem is, that's completely against the spirit of the event.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

So if it's any skill performed on a flat surface, it is clearly an event for any unicyclist who likes to do skills on a flat surface. In other words, it's not "wrong" for Freestyle experts to enter and/or win.

So why are freestyle and flatland separate competitions? Since freestyle experts are able to win both, why not just formally combine them? Unless, possibly, there is in fact a difference between them and flatland experts should be the ones winning the flatland competition.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

If a subset of the Flatland community thinks it would be a better idea to define Flatland differently, they are welcome to do so. I don't think it's a good idea, as it would force you to restrict what riders can do, and eventually lead to something along the lines of Standard Skill.

No one wants to define it differently. That's why we dislike the sentence you added. It was fine before, and I don't see any good that can come from the change.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

It's not May 1 yet. If you haven't contacted Ryan you're running out of time to find out. I'm not on the IUF (or Unicon) Board; I only know what's supposed to happen. Other things could happen. My prediction here is that the Boards will ask the Flatland Director (Olaf Schlote) what he thinks of all this, and that he'll probably say something like "Don't worry, I'll make sure all the judges understand what we're trying to say with the poorly-worded sentence, and that nobody will get the wrong idea." Something like that. The sentence might not even be poorly worded in German (or Italian, or Japanese), they may have done a better job in translation...

I've already discussed this with Olaf and he definitely understands the flatland community's opinion on the issue. I'm sure that'll get relayed in the judging workshop. That's really all I could ask, so it doesn't seem like I'll need to contact Ryan after all.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

The ensuing discussion has not been about disagreeing with it, or has it? Do Flatland riders want a restrictive event, only open to the "Flatland style" of riding, or a wide open event for anything that can be done on flat ground? Perhaps that would be a good question to pose to your active Facebook group, and might give us a better understanding of what those riders really want.

I think it's safe to say that flatland riders want the flatland competition to stay flatland. Not freestyle. That's why the flatland competition is separate from the freestyle competition.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I tried to find it in the Standard Skills List but it's not there. Only Crank Idle (with variations) and Crank Flip (lots of variations). But it is mentioned, a lot, in these forums. By Street and, uh, Flatland riders. Does the Flatland community have a universally recognized set of skills with names and descriptions? I know there are some out there, but not if any one is official.

You won't find it in any list because it doesn't mean anything. It isn't a trick, and no serious flatland rider would use the term precisely because it doesn't mean anything. And no we don't have an official set of skills. Not that we could come up with one even if we wanted, because new tricks are invented every day.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

In the judging criteria? Only examples are given, not any attempt at an exaustive list of tricks and their multitude variations.

My point is that no examples are given in the flatland section. Which could make it appear that the IUF doesn't understand flatland as much as they understand freestyle.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by Julia B

But their superior "riding skill" should technically win the competition, because flatland is any trick done on a flat surface. The problem is, that's completely against the spirit of the event.

What's the spirit of the event?

So why are freestyle and flatland separate competitions? Since freestyle experts are able to win both, why not just formally combine them? Unless, possibly, there is in fact a difference between them and flatland experts should be the ones winning the flatland competition.

What's the difference?

And no we don't have an official set of skills. Not that we could come up with one even if we wanted, because new tricks are invented every day.

My point is that no examples are given in the flatland section. Which could make it appear that the IUF doesn't understand flatland as much as they understand freestyle.

Look, if you can't come up with a set of judging rules for a judged competition, you can't expect anyone to be able to judge the competition consistently or fairly. It sounds like you want to keep the rules vague and have your friends judge the competition, to make sure that one of your friends wins instead of one of those darned freestyle riders (because "freestyle is not flatland", even though you can't explain how, and even though in the video you posted from EUC, the winning trick is a pure freestyle trick).

You are clearly correct that the IUF doesn't understand flatland, but you're not giving them much to go on.

[Julia B]

Tholub, do you see a problem in having two competitions won by identical freestyle routines?

Originally Posted by tholub

What's the difference?

I've already answered this question numerous times. Flatland is centered around rolls, flips, and spins, while freestyle is centered around long routines focused on what I would call "riding variations" (wheelwalk, coasting, ect that can go on for an indeterminate amount of time). But there is a lot of overlap between the two, which is why trying to separate them based on skills would be unfeasible.

Originally Posted by tholub

even though in the video you posted from EUC, the winning trick is a pure freestyle trick).

Which video is this?

[tholub]

Originally Posted by Julia B

Tholub, do you see a problem in having two competitions won by identical freestyle routines?

I understand why that's a problem. It seems that the correct solution is to have a set of rules which explain what needs to be done to win the flatland competition, and how that's different than what needs to be done to win the freestyle competition.

I've already answered this question numerous times. Flatland is centered around rolls, flips, and spins, while freestyle is centered around long routines focused on what I would call "riding variations" (wheelwalk, coasting, ect that can go on for an indeterminate amount of time). But there is a lot of overlap between the two, which is why trying to separate them based on skills would be unfeasible.

Your results are going to be unsatisfactory if you don't have judging criteria. "Use judges who know flatland" doesn't qualify as judging criteria. It's hard enough to make these judged events fair when the rules are well-defined; when the rules are ill-defined, there's no hope.

What if a great freestyle rider wants to expand her genre and try flatland? What should she work on and practice to compete in flatland? What will she be judged on?

Which video is this?

The Josef-Adrien battle from EUC 2011. Josepf finishes with a backwards wheel walk trick that, while clearly difficult, would be entirely at home in a freestyle routine.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by tholub

The Josef-Adrien battle from EUC 2011. Josepf finishes with a backwards wheel walk trick that, while clearly difficult, would be entirely at home in a freestyle routine.

But that isn't true. It's a perfect example of overlap between flat and freestyle, but this trick really has no place in a freestyle competition. It's at the end of a combo that has two rolling tricks before it. I'd expect that in a freestyle competition the rider wouldn't get into his or her wheelwalk variation through the use of a flat combo, and if they did I don't believe it would have a great result on his or her score?

[tholub]

Originally Posted by Panda

But that isn't true. It's a perfect example of overlap between flat and freestyle, but this trick really has no place in a freestyle competition. It's at the end of a combo that has two rolling tricks before it. I'd expect that in a freestyle competition the rider wouldn't get into his or her wheelwalk variation through the use of a flat combo, and if they did I don't believe it would have a great result on his or her score?

OK, now you're getting somewhere (at least a little bit). One identified difference between flatland and freestyle is that flatland rewards combos (per rule 4.11.3.1, Variety/Combos). There's also some reference in 4.11.3.3 (Difficulty). But those rules (nor any other) do not explain why getting into wheel walk from a rolling trick is any more or less "flatland" than getting into wheel walk from, say, seat drag.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Julia B

I really don't understand why he is being so condescending.

That's just the way Tom writes. He's really a good guy. But sometimes it helps to be blunt and to the point; it moves the discussion along...

Originally Posted by Julia B

I did see that page, but the committee information was from 2010, the blog hasn't been updated in months, and the forums have a grand total of about 10 posts in the last year.

Yup. Good thing they don't have me as a webmaster, it might be worse... Sites like that can only post what people give them. Most Webmasters don't want to also be authors/writers, because then the supposed site owners often never even look at the site, and don't know what's on it. This is true for the commercial web sites I do outside of unicycling!

Originally Posted by Julia B

Great! I hope I can get added to that list then.

Guaranteed. Even if I'm not in charge on the next round, I'll make sure your name is on the list. I'll need an email address to go with that, or you can supply it through the official IUF Contact email.

Originally Posted by Julia B

But their superior "riding skill" should technically win the competition, because flatland is any trick done on a flat surface. The problem is, that's completely against the spirit of the event.

Okay, now we're back to "NOT any skill performed on a flat surface." And back to the problem of, how exactly should that be defined? If it cannot be defined, the event cannot work without having problems like the current one (Freestyle vs. Flat style).

Originally Posted by Julia B

So why are freestyle and flatland separate competitions? Since freestyle experts are able to win both, why not just formally combine them?

Do you want to do Freestyle? Even a little? I think that's the answer. They are very different events. In Freestyle, you're allowed to do rail grinds or stair-sets. You just have to supply them yourself. You can ride a giraffe or multi-wheeler. Stuff that isn't allowed in Flat. I think you are well aware of the differences between the two events. The problem with Flatland, under the current definition, is that it's attractive to Freestyle riders who can already do lots of great skills on flat ground. I know this is your problem. But what's the right way to "keep the Freestylers away"?

Originally Posted by Julia B

Unless, possibly, there is in fact a difference between them and flatland experts should be the ones winning the flatland competition.

That's a matter of definitions. Assuming the judges are doing their job, whoever wins the competition is the best Flatland rider. They might also be a Freestyle rider but that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by Julia B

No one wants to define it differently.

But you do! Or we're not understanding your point of view. If you are in favor of the basic definition of Flatland (skills on a flat surface), you're going to have the potential of Freestyle experts entering the competition. If they do better tricks, by the definitions and judging criteria in the Flatland rules, they deserve to win.

Originally Posted by Julia B

That's why we dislike the sentence you added. It was fine before, and I don't see any good that can come from the change.

It was not fine before. Remember, a sentence was not added. That whole section was added. Before this version, there was no definition of what Flatland was. Which led to confusion and uneven judging.

Originally Posted by Julia B

I think it's safe to say that flatland riders want the flatland competition to stay flatland. Not freestyle.

It's Flatland by definition. Or are we again not understanding each other?

Originally Posted by Julia B

My point is that no examples are given in the flatland section. Which could make it appear that the IUF doesn't understand flatland as much as they understand freestyle.

How many pages do you think the Flatland rules should take up? Just as the evil sentence was included in the new Flat rules, to directly address a current question, that listing of trick variations was added to the Freestyle rules to address a different current problem. Some judges weren't "getting it". They saw stand-up wheel walk and didn't pay attention to the variations. Then they would discredit the rider for repeating a trick when they weren't repeating it at all. The example wasn't meant for just that group of tricks; it applies to any time where variations are a factor in different skills. The same surely applies in Flatland? But I don't recommend making the rules any wordier than necessary.

Originally Posted by tholub

It sounds like you want to keep the rules vague and have your friends judge the competition, to make sure that one of your friends wins instead of one of those darned freestyle riders (because "freestyle is not flatland", even though you can't explain how...

He's got a point there. You can't have it both ways. It's either an open definition of what skills can be used, or something closed and complicated. Which should it be?

Originally Posted by tholub

You are clearly correct that the IUF doesn't understand flatland...

The IUF has defined Flatland. The definition is expected to change, and so many rules do. I actually think it's kind of wrong to be as inflexible as we have to be with these rules, for an event that evolves faster than most. But with rules being translated into a dozen languages, you can't just do stuff on the fly. People need a chunk of time to prepare, event for Flatland competition, so the rules have to "stick" for a while before they can be changed again.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Tholub, do you see a problem in having two competitions won by identical freestyle routines?

I would, but it can't happen. The rider would get a terrible score for hogging all the time. Or disqualified? So you're not making your point. It's possible to do a Standard Skill performance in a Freestyle competition, but you would not win at the higher levels. You couldn't do it the other way around though.

But should a great Freestyle rider be able to win the Flat competition? Why not? But they would have to excel at that event to win it. Not just "do Freestyle".

Originally Posted by Julia B

Flatland is centered around rolls, flips, and spins, while freestyle is centered around long routines focused on what I would call "riding variations" (wheelwalk, coasting, ect that can go on for an indeterminate amount of time).

But surely you don't want Flatland to be limited to rolls, flips and spins, do you? That would get boring pretty fast, even as harder and harder variations got added.

But your definition of Freestyle is not accurate. Freestyle is anything and everything. Different riders definitely have different approaches to a Freestyle performance, and the Japanese style, if I may call it that, is much like a dance and as you described. But that's not what the two guys from Switzerland do, not even close. And their performances are no less Freestyle. Freestyle is also rolls, flips, spins and anything else you can think of. All of those skills were used in Freestyle performances before Flatland existed. Especially spins. I think you meant unispins. Both of those tricks have definitions.

Originally Posted by Julia B

But there is a lot of overlap between the two, which is why trying to separate them based on skills would be unfeasible.

There is infinite overlap within the realm of skills done on a standard unicycle on flat ground. But here we go back to the other side. If you don't want to separate things based on skills, which I fully agree with, then what?

Originally Posted by Panda

...but this trick really has no place in a freestyle competition. It's at the end of a combo that has two rolling tricks before it.

Any trick belongs in a Freestyle competition. No trick is "wrong".

Originally Posted by Panda

I'd expect that in a freestyle competition the rider wouldn't get into his or her wheelwalk variation through the use of a flat combo, and if they did I don't believe it would have a great result on his or her score?

Combos get you more points for difficulty than separating them with "easy" riding. This is clearly stated somewhere in that mass of Freestyle rules. So combos are definitely a good thing.