GO TO GLOBAL SITE   se es us fr za it
de ca au no
at br ru ch
gb pl nl sk
Home | News | Videos | Articles | Gallery | Crags | Gyms | Search - Tick List | Forum | Ranking | Blogs | Contact | New Member
Forum: GLOBAL / Editorial / Mackenzie from #4 to #6 due to incorrect start Login in to contribute
Mackenzie from #4 to #6 due to incorrect start
OffLine 8a.nu
  2019-04-08 00:00:00    
After the final, the IFSC results did show that 16 year old Oceanina Mackenzie was #4. Then the french team made a protest saying she did an incorrect start at problem three, which was approved, meaning she lost her zone and dropped to #6.

If Oceanina would have stopped trying after she got her zone, she would have been given at least one more try after the competition.

One problem with such late calls is that in theory, a person like Oceanina could have topped the boulder and possibly advanced to the podium. Judges make mistake and if such situation will happen in Tokyo in could mean an anticlimax. Would if saying that any protest must be handed in within five minutes and then automatically an aster-ix (*) would be shown next to the result.

It is super strange for everyone involved that the current ranking is changed after the medal ceremony and after the live-streaming is stopped.
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-09 09:11:29    
In this case Oceania made illegal start 5 times in a row! Running score on IFSC web page and graphics on the IFSC channel live video was showed to thousand of spectators, she was given a zone in W3 and it stayed so till the end of live streaming 1 hour(!) later :P

Judges should immediately signal wrong start (in the similar way they do for the top or --better-- stop attempt immediately and explain the reason to the competitor). Any appeal in the finals should be made immediately after results for *each* attempt are displayed in the live scoring IFSC page (or display in a venue).
OffLine Jan V'
  2019-04-09 09:28:49    
I don't get why French team protested...not very sportmanlike in this case.
OffLine Martijn Pieterse
  2019-04-09 09:58:45    
Only one hour? Try watching the tour the france. It may take up to 10 years before you know the podium. :-)
OffLine Frank Grabo
  2019-04-09 11:47:06    
What was wrong with the start? the dap with the shoe was to short? Some of the other women did the same...
What is the correct definition to start from isfc?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2019-04-09 13:55:56    
I think you are supposed to not just quickly dab but instead have some control as you use all four start marks. Clearly it would be possible to make several protests also for other situations.
OffLine gianluca
  2019-04-09 14:00:18    
"a competitor must be in a stable position with
four points of contact to the marked starting position in order for a start to be judged correct"

that's new for 2019. Not the most exciting rule change (i don't like 4-points-of-contact to start with) but it probably makes it easier to judge, as it slows the action down a bit?

looking at the same problem, it is very clear that other competitors took extra care showing that the starting position was "stable", more or less as they do at the top. at least those i've seen scrolling down the replay quickly : shauna, fanny, janja.

the most embarassing thing is that the officials did not notice the obviously illegal, repeated starts by the young aussie during the comp. That's their job!!! If they noticed it she could have been informed and easily modified her starting technique, i bet it was just a matter of being too excited to be in a wc final, and forgetting 2019 rule changes...
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-09 14:31:21    
We may agree the appeal of French team was not sportsmanlike, but anyway, they have legal right to do so, we can hardly argue the start was correct. The problem is the judge at this boulder did not stop and instruct the climber, as we may see several times in the past in similar situations. It's probably not in the rules he is obliged to do so(?), but in my opinion it should be. Or at least judge should warn a climber about the false start as soon as he finishes his attempt on that boulder (so he could correct his mistake in his following attempts).
And if the judge makes a mistake (wrongly declare legal start as illegal and vice versa), an appeal should be made 'immediately' after results of that athlete is updated on IFSC scorecard (on web page or other agreed 'media'), not after final (provisional) results are printed at the end of the competition (which was probably the case here).
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2019-04-09 14:36:31    
One big issue here is that several climbers like Narasaki and Chon did do the exact same thing during the male final.
OffLine nschenks87
  2019-04-09 19:26:09    
To me this signals a flaw in the rules and/or the setting. If a stable starting position is achieved with four points and then the climber immediately removes a toe to set up for the first move, then that's a poor job of setting. Personally, I think four points of contact is an absurd rule in the first place. If a climber can get a stable position using three of the start holds instead of four, why penalize them? It seems arbitrary to say you place your toe on a hold for a second before moving even if there is no actual use for the hold beyond adhering to the four points rule.
OffLine Herman
  2019-04-09 23:08:50    
No narasaki and chon did not do the same. Wel at least not that i've seen but maybe jens can give some times for the video?

I would ask to give the judges some slack. This is their first comp with these rules. It's better they get the correct result, although it's a little late.

Ofcourse it would have been better to spot it directly but hey, they missed it, shit happends.

Imagine being the appeals jury and getting a protest by the french coach immediately after the provisional score of Mckenzie has been publiced. (if it was later it could easily be rejected as invalid "to late")

You then have to
a) read up on the rules
b) look at the video of all her attempts
c) also look at all the other climbers so that you are able to do your job in case there are other appeals.
d) Be representative and talk to the mayor
e) Get a ranking for the podium as quickly as possible so that the show can go on.
f) Observe the other judges and organizers that they all perform their duty's
g) breathe.

I don't know if that happened but it would be a very legimate decission to postpone the "reviewing of the appeal" for places 4 until a later time. I'm sure they had informed her of the protest as soon as possible.

But then again, they might have handled the protest in 2 minutes and just forgotten to update the scoring app.

A asterix with "appeal concerning climber x has been launched" would not be a bad idea for the scoring
OffLine Steve
  2019-04-09 23:34:48    
No. It's the judges' job to implement the rules correctly from the first competition on. They need to be prepared, just as the athletes do.

Regarding score changes based on errors/misjudgements after the competition has ended: imagine this would exist e.g. in soccer...
OffLine Alan Little
  2019-04-09 23:53:39    
> We may agree the appeal of French team was not sportsmanlike

I don't. Their responsibility is to their athlete. Fanny is without doubt a world cup podium contender, and a few points could make a difference.
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-10 07:29:39    
Alan, you may disagree, but the fact is young Oceania was judged badly and as result of that she was not given the zone, which she was certainly capable of achieving.
So I will stay with my stance. They better make a protest at IFSC after the comp making sure such cases won't happen in the future.
OffLine Alan Little
  2019-04-10 08:04:58    
Sure, the judging was not as good as it should have been. But that isn't the fault of the French team and doesn't reflect on their behaviour.
OffLine Kuba Główka
  2019-04-10 10:16:51    
It's quite complicated issue and I do not like the precedence that was made in this case...

Facts from the stream:
1. Oceania made several times an "Incorrect start" on W3 in finals.
2. Boulder judge has not ordered "the relevant attempt terminated" on any occasion

In my opinion it is not OK to change the results afterwards even though the competitor fault is clear in streams/recordings - since there was no reaction from judge (that should be!). The fault is made by judge as well and hence the competitor should not be penalized (without option to repeat the attempts).

For reference part of IFSC 2019 rules:

8.17 A competitor’s attempt will be: A)judged “Unsuccessful” if: 1)the competitor has made an Incorrect start; (...) and where a competitor makes an Unsuccessful attempt, the boulder judge shall order the relevant attempt terminated,
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-10 11:52:08    
>Sure, the judging was not as good as it should have been. But that isn't the fault of the French team and doesn't reflect on their behaviour.

The judging was simply wrong -- why should a competitor pay for it? Oceania even climbed higher then Fanny, so for me --given the circumstances-- it would be fair both got the zone. Once French team filed the appeal, jury had no other option as to approve it... And sportsmanship is more important then few extra points.
OffLine Rajko Zajc
  2019-04-10 17:23:08    
..And sportsmanship is more important then few extra points..
Totally agree!
OffLine Jan V'
  2019-04-11 11:04:46    
Sportsmanship is more important then few extra points.

Agreed. Sadly for French team and maybe even for Fanny Gibert herself it was not.
OffLine Herman
  2019-04-11 12:06:12    
My thoughts:
It's not by definition unsportmanshiply to point the judges to rules being broken by an opponend. It's a competition. following the rules is part of the game. Don't feel like it? go have fun in your own bouldering gym.

It's not the judges job to ensure the climbers follow the rules. It's first up to the competitors to follow the rules. So any fault in not following the rules can only ever be blamed on the competitor.

EDIT: FALSE -see below- While it has been practice to "stop " a climber with a incorrect start it is not an obligation that follows from the IFSC rules. So the climbers are not "entitled" to be told when they make a misatke. We can all agree it would be better for the judge to act as soon as possible - for both the climbers and the public- but it is not a obligation.

Judges make mistakes, that is why there is a possibility to make an appeal that is handled by other judges. In this case the boulder judge makes a mistake, an appeal is filed and the appeal jury makes a decission. only then is the result official.

The official result is publiced on the IFSC "notice board". This is a physical board somewhere at the competition venue. All other results are not official. So any argument in "it took 2 hours to update the results" is invalid. But it would be highly benificial to everyone if the Results shown on the live screen and the venue would reflect the official reults.

At the most 5 minutes after the final has ended and the official result are posted on the notice board are the official results definitive. Unless a protest has been filed before tis time and marked as such on the officiall results. No changes can be made to the scores other then in relation to appeals already filed. So it would have been possible to do the award ceremony based on the official (but not definitive) results for places 1-2-3- as the only possible change would be MacKenzie, who is already fouth and could only ever go down.

It is not uncommon for sports to take a longer period for appeals. Cycling has a habit of changing the results up to the next day. In MLB it is possible to make an appeal the folowing day and the game might even be replayed (http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/protested-game) but i'm sure that is very uncommon.

But i notice a trend to make the period between the end of the comp and the definitive result as soon as possible. But that is not always a good thing: (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/the-great-debate-should-sagan-have-been-ejected-from-the-tour-de-france-podcast/)

It would be better to communicate an appeal against provisional or official results better.
-to the speaker at the venue
-to the commentators and director of the live stream
-using the scoreboard at the venue, at the livestream and at the IFSC website / App.

If this had happened the commentators would just have informed us of a appeal and stated that MacKenzie might go down a bit. Then nobody would be suprised, even if it took 2 hours to update the score.

It would be even better to reach an decission on the appeal sooner AND update the results quicker. Preferably during the comp or before the award ceremony. But that would certainly put more organisational stress on the appeal jury and on the livestream director. It is not impossible as during the european championships in eindhoven the -incorrectly - awarded "tops" attempts for Male B2 were rerun after boulder 3. But to ensure this 100% it would add extra costs in manpower, training and/or equipment.

It would have been the best if the Boulder judge and/or the IFSC judge would have spotted the wrong start immediately. (and stopped the attempt, and not enter a score in the scoring system). That requires training and real-life experience with the rules. As this rule has been changed form 2019 to 2018 and this was the first experience with these rules for both the competitors and the judges this mistake is unfortunate but understandable. But we can all be sure that the competitors -and the judges- won't be makingthis mistake again.
OffLine pbla4024
  2019-04-11 12:18:09    
Your claim is not true. Rules explicitly say (rule 8.17A):
"where a competitor makes an Unsuccessful attempt, the boulder judge shall order the
relevant attempt terminated".
So the climbers are "entitled" to be told when they make a mistake.
OffLine Herman
  2019-04-11 12:23:17    
Thanks PBLA, i missed that, even though i looked for it in the rules.

Doesn't really change any of my points though. The climbers should still follow the rules, and even if missed by the boulder judges, it could be overturned by an appeal jury.
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-11 15:01:46    
>Thanks PBLA, i missed that, even though i looked for it in the rules

You also missed (didn't read) this thread (see Kuba's post above).
This is crucial. Judge's mistake made an unfair disadvantage for Oceania, so French team should respect that.
OffLine Herman
  2019-04-11 21:51:58    
I understand your reasoning. and i already adressed it but thinking some more about it raises an interesting point.

It would be very bad to honour the zone for her.

First and foremost it's up to the competitor to follow the rules. if the climber would have followed the rules then there would not have been an issue in the first place.

And secondly, if you follow your argument then we can never have an appeal to a judge's decission and every time a judge makes a mistake one climber gets the benefit, while the other gets screwed over.
That just simply does not make sense.

She broke the rules, the judges knew about it before the definitive results. there is no way her score could have stayed.

As far as i know it has never happened at the IFSC that judges know about a breach in the rules and decide "it's not serious enough, let's not punish the climber". The IFSC Judges miticiously apply the rules (e.g. Clipping top anchor instead of top quickdraw (verhoeven, 2004?), placing a foot against a advertising board (world champs 2018), putting a foot across a stupidly placed tape (canada). So there was only ever going to be one outcome. Her zone would not stand.

What maybe could have been done however is declare a technical incident. This has been done in cases like this where the judge has communicated a wrong decission to the climber. A "technical incident" is then declared and the climber is given additional attempts on the boulder.
This happends for example when a "top" has been announced incorrectly.

There are some difference here though. Some bigger then others. and i'm not sure what would be the best course of action.

-The "Top" is something that the judge must proactively communicate to the climber after which the climber responds by stopping his or her attempt or not (a Smart climber would continue if no "top has been indicated yet).
-Even if the climber does not respond during the attempt he responds after the attempt. Because after an (incorrectly) announced "Top" the climber stops wasting energy and doesn't do another attempt, while there was still time to do so.
-Key is that the climber responds to the judge. The error originates form the judge, not from the climber.

-In the case of an incorrect start it is by definition always the climber who makes the first mistake. Only when another hold has been taken can the judge inform the climber of an incorrect start. At that point the climber has already made an mistake. Only then does the judge make a mistake to not stop / inform the climber of the incorrect start. So it is the judge who failes to respond to the climber, not the other way around.
-in this case Mackenzie had all the opurtunities to correct here mistake(s). Well atleast all 4 minutes of it.
-She definitely would have tried to start differently, if she knew she had started false. whether r not she would have been able to do so is unknown.

It sort of makes sense to declare a technical incident and allow the climber other attempts because of the judges mistake. On the other hand, she originated all the misatkes and had every oportunity to correct here mistake all by herself. It's not the judges role to explain the rules.

Indead an interesting case. The more I think about it the more I understand that the appeal jury might have taken a while.
OffLine Jan V'
  2019-04-12 08:31:31    
Oceania would surely climb to the zone even if she started correctly. For me that's the main reasoning for unsportmanlike behavior of French team because they had to be aware of it.


If Oceania's start was incorrect, then Petra Klingler's (at least what we can see) and even Akiyo Noguchi's starts (succesful attempt) were incorrect too. So if Akiyo's and Petra's starts were ok, then Oceania's was too. Anyway according to rules Oceania was supposed to be informed she's doing something wrong and she wasn't so she might not be aware of it.

"As far as i know it has never happened at the IFSC that judges know about a breach in the rules and decide "it's not serious enough, let's not punish the climber". The IFSC Judges miticiously apply the rules (e.g. Clipping top anchor instead of top quickdraw (verhoeven, 2004?), placing a foot against a advertising board (world champs 2018), putting a foot across a stupidly placed tape (canada). So there was only ever going to be one outcome. Her zone would not stand." - if it happened and athlete wasn't punished you would logicaly probably didn't know about it all. So much for this argument.
OffLine JLH
  2019-04-12 16:31:29    
>"First and foremost it's up to the competitor to follow the rules. if the climber would have followed the rules then there would not have been an issue in the first place ... She broke the rules"

No, you are wrong, Oceania did not break the rules. Controlling the starting holds is a matter of performance and scoring -- in just the same way as it's controlling the zone or top holds. The issue arose not because Oceania broke the rules, but boulder judge did.
In the absence on any explanation from IFSC (how typical and disrespectful to the climbing community!) we may just speculate what happened: after thousands of visitors (live and YT) were sure results are final, French team made an appeal on provisional results hanged on the official notice board after the competition has finished (at least the one which involved climbing ;) and the appeal jury decided the start was incorrect (I agree with that as though I don't believe this start made any unfair advantage for Oceania).
The problem after that Oceania or her team manager (did she have one?) could not made an appeal against wrong reaction (absence of it) of the boulder judge, as they were not aware of incorrect start before. The appeal in such cases must be made as technical incident -- before the next competitor started her attempts in that problem (an hour ago).
I'm sure the strong French team (with all the managers, coaches...) was aware of that and that's why I called it's behaviour unsportsmanlike.