UKC

The third round of the 2017 IFSC Boulder World Cup took place in Nanjing, China last weekend. Great Britain's Shauna Coxsey took 1st place once again this series with a convincing win ahead of 18 year-old Slovenian all-rounder Janja Garnbret. The Japanese team were on top form once again, with six team members in the finals across both categories and Keita Watabe earning his first Gold in an IFSC World Cup.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

No mention of Mei Kotake not being awarded the top despite controlling the top hold within the 4 minute time limit?

In reply to AndyPagett:

Yeah, that was rough! The other climbers just matched on top of their left hand. Miho actually held a worse bit of the top volume (in control).

In reply to AndyPagett:

Any idea what the rationale was?

In reply to Luke90:

The clock stopped, they didn't have a back up clock so gave her an extra two minutes (I think?).

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I think you're talking about a separate incident. The tape was on the hold, not the volume. Turn's out a "welsh top out" was all that was required......

In reply to galpinos:

I don't think she didn't was awarded the top for the non-match on problem 1. She topped 2 and 3 and only has 2 tops in the results table.

There was a issue with Jongwon Chon not matching the tagged part of the last hold in the last round. Fortunately he still had time left on the clock and breezed up it a 2nd time. I think that should've been a bit of a wake up call to the rest of the athletes that the rules are the rules and you need to match the tagged part of the hold.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
I may have got the wrong end of the stick but.....

Andy Pagett was talking about Mei Kotake not getting her top on W2 because the clock failed @12 secs and you were talking about Miho Nonaka not getting her top on W1 because she didn't match the tagged screw on, just the volume, i.e. two separate controversies?

In reply to UKC News:

Yes, that's the incident I was talking about. The clock reset on 12 seconds. Any foo' with YouTube can see she controlled the top hold within the remaining 12 seconds, but (for presumably good reasons known to the judges) rather than review the video footage to see if she was in time they gave her 2 extra minutes to do it again. She didn't get the top 2nd time round.

In reply to AndyPagett:


... and was now even more tired for the next two boulder problems. Very unfair.

In reply to galpinos:

Ah, I was getting the wrong end of the stick!

In reply to galpinos:

What's a Welsh top out?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

What's a Welsh top out?

I'm rather hoping it's a reference to Katherine Jenkins...

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Tapping the back of your hand before dropping off.

It's an old phrase from when area rivalry was more prominent, as no Welsh problems too out........ To be filed along with a Yorkshire sit start etc....

In reply to galpinos:

Ah thanks.

I hadn't heard of a Yorkshire sit start either. I'm guessing it's a bit more of a crouch than a full on sitter?

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Yeah sounds about right, it's more to do with the piles than performance.


Anyone else think Graeme's looking particularly youthful in the photo with Shauna, Janja & Miho?

In reply to AndyPagett:
The announcers should have explained that the situation with Mei was a "technical incident" and that the rules stipulate she can come out at a later point and have 2 min to do the problem. Still, it was heartbreaking to watch.

Miho's non-top was also heart-breaking, but she should have known better. The tape very clearly delineated the small hold on the large hold as the finish, not the large hold, and as was pointed out, the Chon episode from last week should have the competitors hyper-vigilant about this issue.

In reply to galpinos:

No, a clock gets reset (human error in this case not a faulty system) and the climber doesn't know how long they have left, it is a Technical Incident, virtually the definition of one.

When a TI is called the climber has a minimum of 2 minutes to re-climb.

In reply to Rad:

Miho told Shauna and Stanley (The JP) that she had just forgotten about matching the hold rather than the volume. They were all briefed by both me and Stanley during observation. She made a mistake, pure and simple.

alx - define youthful

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed a real shame that she had managed to do it in the time allotted but due to the clock resetting she didn't get the tick. The extra 2 minutes is all well and good but she's then more tired or both the problem she has already topped and the subsequent problems.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

A classic example of where the rules need changing. Mei should have been allowed to proceed onto the next problem.
The appeal jury could then have the time to make a fair ruling. It just made the IFSC look stupid.

Was it just me or did it seem that the athletes and officials area was huge. This really affects the atmosphere of the event. If I was a paying punter i'd be a bit peeved at being so far away from the action.

And well done Team GB. A much stronger showing.

Interesting to see a some lead names doing bouldering and others doubling up by doing speed too. Olympic preparations seem to have started in earnest for some competitors. Are we behind in that respect?

In reply to becauseitsthere:


There has always been a "crossover" between lead and boulder, but in answer to your question - Yes for the most part, but with some notable exceptions.

In reply to becauseitsthere:

Jain Kim has been doing boulder comps, and making semis pretty regularly, since as long as I've been watching them. Iirc the first one I saw was Munich in 2012.

She definitely isn't a strong candidate for speed though.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Maximum?

In reply to Andy Say:

Nope, minimum. If the TI happened after 1 minute in the semi final then they have 4 minutes for a re-climb. If the TI happens 12 seconds before the end then they are given 2 minutes.

In reply to becauseitsthere:


Really. In this case, in your opinion, then maybe yes. In other cases (eg the lights had failed) then no. But the rule has to try and encompass all eventualities and therefore sometimes it might appear unfair on the athlete.

BTW you seem to misunderstand that all appeals/issues MUST be sorted out before the next problem is started.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I suppose there will always be debate about rules. They constantly and rightly, should evolve. Injustices, as disappointing as they are, can often be the catalyst for change.

Hope you're enjoying Japan. Am looking forward to it.

In reply to becauseitsthere:

Yes, debate is always good about the Rules but this instance is a bit like trying to unblow a whistle that was blown before a goal was scored. Once the clock was reset the TI was automatic.

Off to explore Tokyo for a few hours. I will be looking for some nice single malt

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Is there no room for judges discretion in the rules? It seems silly to automatically apply a rule when so many different events (that result in a wide variety of outcomes) can lead to it.

For example this scenario is massively different to failing lights which might make it hard to clarify if a top was achieved - here we could clearly see that she topped the problem less than 4 minutes after the time had started.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Or like demanding a game be re-played because the ref made a mistake in the dying minutes.....

Anyway - a few questions for you

1) Does the IFSC have any plans to introduce Olympic format comps prior to 2020 ? i.e. a single combined comp rather than 3 separate series which occasionally coincide.

2) Any idea when the qualification process for 2020 will be announced ?

3) Who will be responsible for route-setting ? I think it is going to be quite a challenge for the IFSC to maintain fairness as it scales up. In skiing the coaches take it in turns to set the slalom courses, but I think in climbing it would be far easier to set a route to favour a particular athlete. And of course not only is neutrality required, but also secrecy.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I guess I'll ask the question we were screaming at the TV at the time, which was "but why can't they check the video footage"? I thought all problems were filmed in case of incidents?

(I am hopefully not criticising or stirring the pot by the way, just trying to understand)

In reply to WillRobertson:


No. This would have led to an extraordinarily short pause, measured in milliseconds, before every other team coach appealed (successfully) due to the rule not being correctly applied.

There is nothing to stop a rule being subsequently changed if it leads to an unfair situation. The rule makers have a difficult job; they are trying to foresee all possible circumstances before they have happened, and provide for a fair outcome for all competitors, whilst keeping the rules as simple as possible. But no, rules cannot be changed part way through a comp.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The pre-amble. Yes, you are correct, the result of the FA Cup tie was not changed despite the fact that the referee had made a mistake, and of course as you well know the extra player did make a defensive clearance from a corner (I was in the stand behind the goal and the whole crowd were baying for the ref's blood).

1). Yes but don't know where or when but I hear things about a pre-event in Tokyo
2). No, I wasn't at the Plenary Assembly so not sure if it was announced then, however I will see Marco this weekend so can ask.
3). Yes this is known about and is under discussion.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
alx - define youthful

Not looking like a vintage charity shop handbag left in the sun too long! :-D

In reply to Ian W:

This isn't really what I was asking though - allowing some discretion to the judges is not the same as changing the rules.

Graeme, any input on this?

Cheers.