UKC

Shauna only needs to get ninth this weekend to win the overall title. She suffered with the heat last year in Mumbai and ended up ninth then.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/livestream-boulder-world-cup-2017-mumbai-india


Favourites for the men? I'd like to see Rubstov get it, sounds like a top guy and funds the comps himself I believe. But happy to see any of the others take it too. Great season for Watabe, Tomoa seems like the strongest, and Jongwon Chon is highly impressive generally.

In reply to stp:

Massive congrats to Shauna for taking the overall title merely halfway through the semi final. Without Janja competing she's clearly in a class of one. She seems to make all the of problems look like warm ups. Be surprising if she doesn't win the final later on today.

In reply to stp:

Gosh, that last problem!

In reply to Lemony:

Yes indeed ... wow!

In reply to stp:

That might actually have made me change my mind on the 4+ question.

In reply to Lemony:

Yeah, very high risk strategy by the routesetters that paid off handsomely.

In reply to stp:

Imagine if Shauna had needed that top for the win or even for the overall... I don't know how the timing is done but I imagine it would have been a bit tense.

In reply to Lemony:

Quite. If that had decided the event then the Japanese would have been entirely within their rights to appeal. She clearly touched the hold in time, but did she "control" it with both hands before the bell?

Time for a spot of stop-framing on youtube.

In reply to AlanLittle:

And if such an appeal would have held it would be really poor for climbing because it then prioritizes speed over getting to the top, which climbing never has been, which is why I prefer the 4+ rule.

In reply to stp:
You are quite right.

But a team manager has the responsibility to do the best for his team under the rules as they are, so not to appeal would have been negligent if that top had decided anything.

In reply to AlanLittle:



Graeme will know better, but my understanding is that a climber needs to match the top in the time available, and any additional second or two needed to demonstrate that it's in control can overrun the time limit.

I've not seen a reply after seeing it live, but I wasn't 100% sure she matched before the time ran out - certainly it will have been extremely close. Of course it doesn't matter one jot because nothing whatsoever would change whether she did or didn't. so any potential appeal would be churlish. It does, however, highlight the fact that sooner or later a win or a title will inevitably come down to a marginal clock-watching decision, which may be understandable and pragmatic but will never be ideal.

Made for a fantastic viewing moment though, with both winners topping within a second or two right next to each other and at the very last moment.

In reply to AlanLittle:



We watched it at 0.25 speed and our view was that she clearly only even matched the hold, let alone control it *after* the timer in the top right hand corner had started to show 0:00. BUT... with the sound on, the horn went *after* the timer had started to show 0:00, and the split second delay between timer and horn means that she DID manage to get her hands on the hold before the horn, but after the timer showed 0:00. So given that we were watching a stream which could potentially have all sorts of sync errors between timers and between sound and audio, we figured it wasn't possible for us to say whether or not she got it.

Would also love Graeme's comments on John Arran's question below - i.e. do you just have to *match* within the time and then control, or do you have to be deemed to have controlled it within the time?

In reply to AndyPagett:


... which raises the question: Is the display clock rounding up or down? If there was a delay after 0 but before the horn it suggests the clock might have turned to 0 as soon as the time remaining was 0.999... seconds, i.e. rounded down. Could make a critical difference.

In reply to AndyPagett:
The display clock goes to zero and then stops, so that surely must be intended to mean "zero time remaining". However, what probably hadn't occurred to me but should have done is that the display clock in the video stream *isn't* the official timing clock and might not be very precisely synched with it - good point Andy.

In reply to stp:

I only realised I could watch the comps after the pay-to-view fiasco, but I have to say its gripping viewing (sorry for the pun). You keep on thinking "how on earth will anyone climb that ?" and then along comes Shauna .....

As for the time limit question, I'm sure Graeme's answer will be that it's all down to the judges - he's never been the sort to argue about refereeing decisions

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The rule says

"An attempt on a boulder shall be considered successful when the Boulder Judge has announced “OK”, having determined that the competitor has either:

a) Controlled the marked finishing hold of the Boulder with both hands"

It does not mention anything about beeps etc or if the timer shows zero. Different timers have different characteristics eg the one from Vail is set up so that if you hear the last long beep starting then the time is over (ironically this timer is from Iran but don't tell Trump that I brought it in!).

I don't know which timer was used in Mumbai as I wasn't there.

As for the timer on the stream. If the timer is an old skool LED system then there is usually no HDMI output so the clock on screen is a feed from a camera filming the timer. In Mumbai it looked as it was connected as it wasn't LED and it didn't shake.

The 'in control' bit is important. On men's P1 in the final you could easily argue that you weren't in control until you had stopped the swing - there was an incident like this at a BWC in Swiss years ago - last move was a sideways dyno, one athlete clearly had both hands on the finishing hold but was only at the start of the swing when time ran out (it was semi final so fixed clock) so they weren't given TOP.

For Shauna you could easily argue that she was in control as soon as her second hand was on the hold. But was she in time, well not my decision

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Shouldn't there be a b) in your answer ?

And another question. Why do the competitors have to give the judges their scorecards ? I do hope it isn't like golf and you can get disqualified for a clerical error

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes there should be a b) but as it refers to how a Top Out boulder is finished (by standing up) it didn't seem relevant

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Oh man, the world cup desperately needs a hideous Elephants Arse top out boulder.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


We are actually changing this - we always used scorecards so the athletes knew what they had been scored and could Appeal is required. But in the last 2 comps (Japan and the USA) the judge just held up a sheet with the score on so the athletes could still see their score and Appeal if necessary, but didn't have to traipse across the mats.

But I had forgotten to pass this info on to Christophe who was the Delegate in Mumbai

In reply to Lemony:
Problem is Top out boulders can only be 4m high and would look strange sat in the middle of higher walls. Plus you need to build a proper fire escape size steps to get down. They would cost a lot of wonga.

Rockstars do it but they have a LOT of wonga!

In reply to AndyPagett:


If one has to ask such a question, doesn't that imply a problem with the rules?

How about a rule that the climber need only be touching the final hold (at least one hand) within the time limit, and can then complete (match and have control)?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Because the rule needs to be the same for all rounds and your suggestion wouldn't work in the quals or semis as you would be eating into the next climbers time.