International Riders

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started 11 Jan 15:47

We have had many discussions in the past about how to address international competitors at NAUCC and currently the rule in the IUF Rulebook is unclear. We need to discuss as a committee whether or not we want to try to tackle this issue for this rulebook session and if we don't, then I think we need to add a rule in Chapter 1 that says clearly that hosts need to come up with their own rules about it and publish them within xxxx days/months of the competition.

Comment 11 Jan 15:49

I think we should try to tackle this. This is too big of an issue now and ongoing to leave up to host decisions yearly. Some consistency is needed. Do we want to put in this discussion what we used last year and then discuss that before proposing a rule?

Comment 11 Jan 15:53

That makes sense. I'm not sure how accessible all of those comments are because we did it all in a google doc and the comment threads got quite long and weren't always super easy to follow. But here's the link to that:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17VF1RZ0K2wlqxjBrhNSXe0G2CcDP5oFwXIkFubelnNU/edit?usp=sharing

Comment 11 Jan 18:56

Excellent! I had a bad feeling about how the international rider rules were written but couldn't put a finger on my unease. It would be great to get this clarified.

FYI: the comment field is missing when I look at the discussion on my iPhone. :-(

Comment 12 Jan 12:43

Here is some of what is what USA used last year, with the modifications I am thinking about. You will notice it draws a more severe line that 2019, I am prepared for discussion. I kept the specific event language exactly the same, my modifications only about awards themselves. I am a bit torn by my distinct line, but in many ways I think it is the best option. A few reasons: 1) It is the North American event, so let's make it the North American event. 2) From what I understand about other orgs like ours, they set distinct country limits as well. 3) When giving the awards, esp. for younger riders, it may take something away from the award, even if explained. "Did I win second place in the North American Championships or didn't I?"

I understand the arguments for giving awards to non-NA riders, even duplicate award: A) award skills; B) Be friendly; C) be encouraged to get better by competing against better riders (IMO this is UNICON).

But I come down on the side of "This is the North American event, we enjoy people riding with us, but let's make it what it is for awards."

My idea for rule:

NAUCC competitors must be citizens or a legal resident of a North American country or territory. If necessary, citizenship or residency may be established with a passport, visa, or other valid documentation during onsite registration.

Non-North American competitors will still be allowed to participate in most competitions at NAUCC. However, because NAUCC is the North American Championship, they cannot be the North American Champion of any event and cannot displace the award of any North American competitor. Awards will not be given to the non-North American rider.

Event rules for riders who do not meet North American citizenship or residency requirements are as follows:

For Road Races (10k, Marathon, Criterium), Muni (XC, Uphill, Downhill), Cyclocross, High Jump, and Long Jump, non-North American riders may participate, but may not displace a North American rider, as outlined above.

For Hockey and Basketball, non-North American riders are not allowed to compete due to the elimination nature of these competitions.

For elimination single-person competitions (Flatland, Street, X-Style) riders may compete in the preliminary rounds of competitions but may not advance to finals.

For Freestyle, non-North American riders may not compete. However, they may participate in an exhibition capacity. This exhibition routine must take place at the end of the category, after all North American riders have competed. This applies for Individual Freestyle, Pairs Freestyle (either one or both of the riders are non-North American), Club and Group freestyle (containing a non-NA member).

For Trials, non-North American riders may participate. If they qualify to the final round then they can only advance if the next highest placing North American rider is also included as to not displace them. For the final placings, non-North American riders cannot displace any North American rider.

Comment 12 Jan 14:38

Is there a way to allow participation in team sports in an exhibition capacity. "Teams with International riders may play in the competition but they cannot earn points toward advancement to final nor can they take points from teams without International competitors."

Comment 12 Jan 14:41

I would propose that-

"Club freestyle teams may have no more than (2) international competitors and Group freestyle teams may have no more than 1 international participants."

Comment 12 Jan 15:32

I am not familiar with how other national organizations handle international participants. Is there a de facto consensus? The more we as a world wide community can be consistent the better.

Comment 12 Jan 16:09

To my knowledge and observations over the years, what seems to have been the main source of friction is the involvement of international riders in the group and club freestyle routines. Some years they have been allowed in groups and clubs that win National titles, and some years they have not. Personally, I don't see how having a couple of international riders in a group or club would be a problem as far as fairness and winning North American titles. The problem is that it hasn't been properly discussed or clarified, with a set rule established. So the question we need to debate is, do we let a few international riders be in the group/club routines if they aren't giving the clubs an advantage (thus limiting the number eligible to be in them). Or, does this make it too complicated and we should disallow any international competitors in group and club routines?

I think it might just be too complicated to allow international riders in routines. For those who want them to be able to be in these routines, why should we allow this?

Comment 12 Jan 16:09

"I would propose that-

"Club freestyle teams may have no more than (2) international competitors and Group freestyle teams may have no more than 1 international participants."

So just to be clear Jill, you're proposing to allow international riders (a specified amount) on routines that are in the running for North American titles? And thus can apart of routines that gain a North American title?

Comment 12 Jan 19:02

That is what I am proposing. The reason for the proposed rule change is that we have international students who are studying abroad for a semester or year and selecting a school/community because of the opportunity to continue unicycling. Those participants should be allowed to be a full participant in their "new" club/community including participation at NAUCC.

Comment 13 Jan 13:36

I see Jill's point, but if I were to study a semester abroad I wouldn't expect to be included in, say, an EUC championship. As far as I know the Olympics don't allow this either, which IMHO would be the de facto standard.

If we want to allow international riders in NAUCC championships just to increase the number of participants then that is a different discussion.

Comment 13 Jan 19:42

Jill - About Team competition and adding International Teams. Wouldn't this in practice be giving the USA team a "by" in the first round if they were matched against a team with international riders? I am unsure about how this would be viewed competition-wise, if it is an advatage at all to have a by in a tournament. I need to think about it.

IS that what you were thinking?

Comment 13 Jan 19:44

Concerning riders studying the USA for a year: I thought I had seen language that we used somewhere that would allow a student who is registered at a school in North America for a year to be considered a "North American resident" for NAUCC. Does anyone else remember that? That would be a middle ground that I think might be ok for people who are living her for a year.

Comment 13 Jan 20:23

I think that where the discussion perseverated within the USA Board last year was that if you have a club routine with 3 people, then having 1 international rider and definitely 2 is a clear advantage. We can get really specific and make it a percentage instead of a number of people. For example, are we okay with having 1 international rider for every 10 North Americans?

Jill, the section you are referring to is 1B.5 in the USA Rulebook. "Riders must represent the country in which they hold citizenship, or in which they are a legal resident. For example, if a rider is attending school in a different country, and is in that country legally, the rider can represent that country, or the rider’s home country." I find this section to be really confusing. Attending school in a different country is not the same as being a permanent resident.

I also think that last year we had talked about perhaps having 2 categories of international riders: temporary residents and visitors. I see a temporary resident as a foreign exchange student or someone in the country for a semester or more whereas a visitor is someone who is just in North American for travel. I think this is a clear distinction and temporary residents should have more competition rights than a visitor.

Comment 14 Jan 10:25

There are two separate questions here:

1) How do we qualify various forms of residents and visitors.

2) How should those riders be allowed to compete in various disciplines/events.

In the case of 1), I think there are three categories:
A) Citizens, Permanent residents, and temporary residents with visas longer than 1 year
B) Temporary residents who are in the country for between 90 days and 1 year, like an exchange student.
C) Visitors/Tourists that do not need to apply for a visa, or whose visa is 90 or shorter.

I think that most of the debate comes around how question (2) applies to (B) people, and if they should be allowed to compete in multi-person events like basketball and club freestyle just like (A) people.

I hope this delineation can provide some consistent language we can use to describe our thoughts going forward.

Comment 14 Jan 10:27

Note: My interpretation of the IUF text and example regarding attending school is about attending a school/university for an extended period of time (3+ years) not visiting as an exchange student for 1 semester or 1 year. I agree that the text is rather unclear.

Comment 14 Jan 19:05

I agree with the three categories and that it would be helpful to separate and properly define them in the rulebook. Here's how I feel as far as competing is concerned:

For Road Races, Muni, Cyclocross, High Jump, and Long Jump, both B & C riders can compete but may not displace a North American rider.

For Hockey and Basketball, B riders may compete with a team. C riders may not compete due to the elimination nature of these competitions.

For elimination single-person competitions (Flatland, Street, X-Style), B & C riders may compete in the preliminary rounds of competitions but may not advance to finals.

For Individual & Pairs & Group Freestyle, B & C riders can compete but they (or their pair or group) cannot displace a North American rider.

For Club Freestyle, B riders may compete if they are a member of the participating club. C riders may not compete.

For Trials, B & C riders may participate. If they qualify to the final round then they can only advance if the next highest placing North American rider is also included as to not displace them. For the final placings, non-North American riders cannot displace any North American rider.

Comment 14 Jan 21:31

I agree with Mike's comments and that categories B & C apply as Non-North American competitors. I'm still considering Category A, that is with Visas > then 1 year as a North American competitor.

Comment 15 Jan 20:19

I like Scott and Patricia's interpretation of the categories and how they should compete. But I do agree with Rick, should the temporary residents with visas longer than 1 year really be considered A? I think those riders should be B. Permanent residents or those who hold a North American Citizen should be A, and the rest should fall under B and C.

If we allow B riders to compete in Hockey, Basketball, and Club, we need to have a further discussion as to how many can be apart of those teams as not to create an unfair advantage (because let's face it, riders from the other countries are typically much higher skill than North American riders).

The rest of the competing and categories sound good to me. Although, time allowing, it was nice to have the international riders compete in there own advanced category (elimination single-person competitions (Flatland, Street, X-Style)) separate from the national riders, and rank them 1st 2nd and so own within their own international pool. But, that should not be apart of the rules just something to think about if time allows.

"For Individual & Pairs & Group Freestyle, B & C riders can compete but they (or their pair or group) cannot displace a North American rider."

So, just to be clear, if an international rider was in a small group that small group could not win first place? I know this has caused conflict in the past and I want to make sure I am understanding this clearly.

Comment 15 Jan 21:02

Legally, people who are in the US longer than one year fit the "A" category. There's not really a whole lot of discussion to be had there...

Comment 19 Jan 11:54

It would be great if some more voices would chime in here so that we can move this towards a proposal.

And yes, I think that a group in group freestyle does not need to win if they have an international rider in their group. I think that Club is so different when we are talking about the B category of international riders because it usually is prepared over the course of 6 months or more whereas group is not.

A question about hockey and basketball: many years there are round robin rounds before moving on to elimination. Couldn't it be feasible for a team with an international rider (C category) to play in the round robin rounds and the simply not advance? This seems similar to what we were okay with for flatland, street, and x-style. Then they could still play some hockey and basketball but not displace any North American riders.

Comment 19 Jan 12:35

As to this:

I don't think that this is feasible because of how the scoring for the round robin needs to be done. Maybe it can be done, but seems complicated (let me know if I am wrong).

I can't recall doing around robin for years now because of time constraints.

Comment 19 Jan 12:51

I am trying to get me head exactly around why we let B people compete in some things for awards and not others. I am not against the way Patricia spelled it out, but I want clear rationale that I understand.

- Are we allowing B people on team sports because we see their influence as a small enough piece to "matter" as much?

Why not treat B people like A people? If we are treating them as Club and Team members, why not treat them as full competitors outright? They are living in North America for a significant amount of time.

I see some difference in the team sports vs. individual. But why then did Group FT get lumped in with Individual FT?

Hockey and Basketball are small team sports, lots of Group FT teams are the same size. In my mind they are equal.

In Hockey and Bball, one player can be highly skilled enough to really tip the scales - have you seen the shooting ability of some individuals? Not just international people, but some North American people.

I want to be persuaded that B people are not A people. This morning I am viewing them as the same for all activities. Part of me says "You are living here for a significant amount of time, you can be part of our event as a NOrth American, esp. if you are here in June-July as part if your year." I bet that is 1-2 people, tops.

So "Sunday Morning Mike" is arguing: A&B are one group, and they are all in. C is the different group. And C cannot advance/displace NA riders, and cannot be on teams or in groups or clubs.

Comment 19 Jan 17:05

In my mind, the reason for the distinction between A & B riders exists mostly so that B riders can compete in events centered around their belonging to a club. I don't feel that A & B riders are the same when it comes to individual events. An A rider is a permanent resident which shows their intent to live in North America for an extended and future time. A B resident is clearly temporary and usually has an end date to their stay in North America therefore they don't need to be a North American champion in an individual event.

I'll use Amanda as an example since she is the clearest and most recent example of a B rider. I do not do this to make this personal or affiliated with one club but it can sometimes be helpful to think of things with actual people in mind. Amanda lived with MadUni families for a semester, was a club member, and made vested, longterm relationships with club members. She practiced with MadUni's freestyle team for a semester and it was very special for her to be able to compete in the Club routine with MadUni as she truly felt like a member of the club. However, Amanda did not need to be able to win Individual Freestyle or Track Races since there she was representing herself and not herself as a part of a larger club. If Amanda were a rider who loved hockey and practiced all semester with MadUni's hockey team, it would be nice for her to be a part of that in the same way she was a part of the club routine. Group freestyle in the US is not an event truly associated with a club which is why I see it differently. However, I don't feel strongly. If we want to allow B riders to also be allowed to compete fully in group routines in an effort to be consistent with hockey then I am fine with that.

The way I see it:

- A riders are allowed to compete in everything and earn titles as a North American because that is their legal status.

- B riders should be allowed to earn titles in all events where they have practiced longterm with their club (club freestyle, team sports, group can be included as well). They should not be able to earn titles or displace North American riders in individual/pairs events where they are only representing themselves.

- C riders are considered international riders and cannot earn titles or displace a North American rider in anything.

Comment 19 Jan 17:06

As far a C riders go for team sports, it would be nice to have a clause that would allow them to play in round robin rounds should they occur. I understand that time hasn't allowed for this in recent years. I see no problem with them competing in these rounds because their team simply couldn't earn points to advance.

Comment 19 Jan 17:16

I think the last A, B, C breakdown Patricia presents seems reasonable. I do think that it does need to have a cap of 1-2 riders per group or team.

The clause for C riders to be part of a round robin, should there be a long enough time to have one, is a good idea.

Comment 19 Jan 18:39

The phrase "...where they have practiced longterm with their club..." will need more definition. Long term to me may not be to others.

How do other national organizations handle international riders? I've asked this before but it has gone unnoticed.

Comment 19 Jan 19:13

I would like to clarify some things as far as urban events are concerned as there seems to be some confusion. Also, I apologize for being late to this discussion, I waited for some feedback from some individuals before I responded to this.

Street, X-Style, and Trials are run fundamentally the same. All competitors get their turn to go and the highest scores move on. If an international rider scores high enough they can move onto the finals without interfering in the competition by simply adding the next in line North American competitor. While some competitors are knocked out, there is no direct interference by other riders. In events like these, A B and C riders should all be able to compete with the only restrictions being on who is able to receive medals.

Flatland, on the other hand, is a bracket based system with one on one battles to determine who advances. In a system like this, there really is no way to preserve the integrity of the competition if someone who is unable to medal competes in the competition because of the other riders' performance directly influencing your own placing.

As far as how other organizations handle international riders (specifically in the flatland competition)... Australia had a French rider competing in 2018, in which he medaled. A Swiss rider competed in the LAUCC in 2017, I'm unsure if he medaled. EUC actually stands for Extreme Unicycle Championship and while it is held primarily in Europe, anyone in the world may compete and place. I can't guarantee this, but I believe EC allows international riders to compete in all events. I could be mistaken but I asked August Agerskov and he said this was the case. We have also done this in the past with Australian riders competing in 2011 and 2013. Australians were unable to receive medals but they could compete in the competition and there was no uproar from the community.

A large majority of urban riders want international riders to compete in flatland without restrictions on going to battles. I contacted all of the expert male flatland medalists in the past 3 years. I sent them all the same prompt and here's what they said (apologies for the long comment here).

Scott Julian (2nd place 2018, 3rd place 2019) said, "I would encourage international riders competing, as it makes more riders motivated and excited for the competition."

Michael Bachleda (1st place 2018) said, "I welcome international riders. I think it makes for a more exciting competition. With that being said I feel some parents might get hurt that their children don’t get medals anymore."

Jack Sebben (3rd place 2018, 1st place 2019) said, "I welcome international riders. I think it makes for a more exciting competition. With that being said I feel some parents might get hurt that their children don’t get medals anymore. Yeah, I would just treat it like a US rider." Then he asked what was going on and after I explained the current discussion happening and he said, "Noooo street and flat are basically equal and I have a strong opinion that it shouldn't matter. As someone who's been in the urban community for 10 years, I can say that almost no Street or Flat rider cares about the nationality or competing of international riders."

Alex Anderson (3rd place 2017) said: "International riders should be able to participate in prelims, but if they make it to finals, they should have their own side battles against each other."

I was unable to get a response from Sean Minter (2nd 2017) and Max Schultz (2nd 2019). I also got 1st in 2017 but I'm willing to bet people already know my stance on this.

I fully understand that if we were to allow international riders to compete in flatland, that would clearly interfere in a North American riders' placing. The only argument I have to that is that the urban community as a whole doesn't want that to be the case.

To summarize, A B and C riders should be allowed to compete in X-Style, Street, and Trials. I'm also making the argument that the urban community feels that international riders should be able to participate in their competition, so A B and C should be able to compete.

Moving past the urban stuff. I agree with what Mike is saying. I'm also in the mindset that A&B should be treated similarly. I disagree with certain B riders being allowed to compete in (club group and team sports) while other B riders should be excluded. There should be no wording in the rules that would limit a B rider on their ability to compete based on whether or not they're in a club with the exception of the club competition itself. If they are a B rider they should be able to compete in x y z events and if they are a C rider they can't compete in x y z. I'll give a scenario.

Let's say Geoff is staying in Texas for 6 months and wants to attend NAUCC. He isn't near any major club. He also wanted to compete in hockey. With what's being suggested, he would be unable to compete, correct? Now let's say Jessica is staying in Michigan for 6 months and she's near RTUC. She attends practices regularly and would like to compete at NAUCC. She also wants to compete in hockey. Are these two riders treated differently based on their club ties? If I'm understanding this correctly, then I disagree and this shouldn't be the case. I do believe that Jessica should be able to compete in the club routine, and Geoff should not.

Aside from what I listed here, I agree with everything else in Patricia's listing for what events international riders will be able to participate in. Also I LOVE the idea of using round-robin to include everyone!

Comment 19 Jan 21:22

I just heard back from Sean Minter (2nd 2017) and he said, "Yeah I think they should be able to (compete). As long as us Americans can compete in their flatland comps." I'm adding this on now just to really bring home the fact that this what a majority of the urban community wants.

Also, I made a mistake in my previous comment, I've been writing it out over the past few days and I made an error pasting it over. Jack Sebben said the following:

Jack Sebben (3rd place 2018, 1st place 2019) said, "Yeah, I would just treat it like a US rider." Then he asked what was going on and after I explained the current discussion happening and he said, "Noooo street and flat are basically equal and I have a strong opinion that it shouldn't matter. As someone who's been in the urban community for 10 years, I can say that almost no Street or Flat rider cares about the nationality or competing of international riders."

Comment 20 Jan 08:03

Sigh, I don' see this topic moving towards a simple answer. How are we with this - is this getting close to what the group wants?

Three categories of riders:

A) Citizens, Permanent residents, and temporary residents with visas longer than 1 year
B) Temporary residents who are in the country for between 90 days and 1 year, like an exchange student.
C) Visitors/Tourists that do not need to apply for a visa, or whose visa is 90 or shorter.

For Road Races, Muni, Cyclocross, High Jump, and Long Jump, both B & C riders can compete but may not displace a North American rider.

For Hockey and Basketball, B riders may compete with a team. C riders may not compete due to the elimination nature of these competitions. If the competition is a round robin it is up to the discretion of the host to allow teams with C riders to play, but those teams cannot displace teams with no C riders on them.

For Street, X-Style, B & C riders may compete.

For Flatland .... Dale - what did you say for this>

For Individual & Pairs & Group Freestyle, B & C riders can compete but they (or their pair or group) cannot displace a North American rider.

For Club Freestyle, B riders may compete if they are a member of the participating club. C riders may not compete.

Comment 20 Jan 09:45

I agree with almost everything listed above. In the event that the team sports are run round-robin style, I don't know why the participation of the international riders would be left up to the host. Also, the wording for trials could also be applied to street and x-style as they are run in a very similar fashion.

As for flatland... I'm suggesting that both B and C riders are able to participate in both the preliminary rounds and the final battles. I fully realize this would mean that international riders would be able to displace North American riders. Despite this, a large majority of the urban community would rather have B and C riders able to fully compete as the final battles are generally considered to be the real competition.

Comment 20 Jan 09:58

How does one score a round robin with a team that shouldn't count? Am I missing something simple? You can;t just exclude them from the results list becuase the results of the other game against this team matter. So if bad team beat team A but lost to team B, how does one rectify that? Is the answer that in the ACTUAL calculation of the tournemant you keep out all of the games with the "bad team"? Ok, my cloud may be lifted.

Changed to inlcude Dale's comments:

Three categories of riders:

For Road Races, Muni, Cyclocross, High Jump, and Long Jump, both B & C riders can compete but may not displace a North American rider.

For Hockey and Basketball, B riders may compete with a team, C riders may not. If there is time for a round robin tournament, teams with C riders may participate in the round robin, but those games will not be part of the tournament scoring.

Flatland: B & C riders may compete.

For Individual & Pairs & Group Freestyle, B & C riders can compete but they (or their pair or group) cannot displace a North American rider.

For Club Freestyle, B riders may compete if they are a member of the participating club. C riders may not compete.

For Street, X-Style, Trials: B & C riders may participate. If they qualify to the final round then they can only advance if the next highest placing North American rider is also included as to not displace them. For the final placings, non-North American riders cannot displace any North American rider.

Comment 21 Jan 17:08

I agree with Patricia's breakdown and think it makes sense.

- A riders are allowed to compete in everything and earn titles as a North American because that is their legal status.

- C riders are considered international riders and cannot earn titles or displace a North American rider in anything.

Based on this, I want to clarify Mike's adjustments to Flatland:

Flatland: B & C riders may compete.

So, does this mean you are proposing they win a title? Are we making an exception to Patrica's outline for flatland?

Comment 21 Jan 17:23

In response to Dani's question, I believe the answer is "yes". I think that Dale's comment said that this discipline wanted everyone to be able to win. So maybe a better way to say it is like:

Flatland: A, B, and C riders may compete and win awards equally.

I think this may be the last open thing to clear up on this discussion before it goes to a proposal.

Comment 21 Jan 18:59

I guess I’m a little confused as to why flatland is being treated differently to other similar competitions. Right now with what Dale is proposing, it is the only competition where an international rider (B or C) could earn the title of North American champion as an individual. This feels inconsistent from the other disciplines.

I understand that flatland riders want the international riders to be able to compete but why can’t they do that and still “tie” in the final rankings like we have done for many years? I’m pretty uncomfortable with them being allowed to outright win and claim a title. If we want to allow them to displace North American riders while advancing through the bracket I don’t have a big issue with that. But when it comes to the final ranking on the podium I do not think they should be able to displace a North American rider.

Comment 21 Jan 20:13

I appreciate the research Dale did in asking former champions, but I think that this is beyond the opinion of the champion. Flatland should fit the same description as other events.

I agree with Patricia's clarification. Consistency is important.

Comment 21 Jan 21:25

I agree with Patricia and Jill, I think we need to be more consistent, otherwise this turns into a part North American competition and a part mini UNICON.

I also appreciate all of the work Dale put into this and the willingness of all of those riders to give feedback. That said, I think this that NAUCC still needs to definitely stay the North American competition.

Patricia, can you help me out and give me the wording you would use for Flat? I am having a hard time sorting out all of the comments!

Comment 21 Jan 21:29

I agree with Patricia and Jill, we need to be consistent with the disciplines.

Comment 21 Jan 21:53

I apologize, I should have made this a bit more clear in hindsight. An international rider should not be able to be the North American Champion. In the event that an international rider wins first place, the second-place North American becomes the official champion, third becomes second, and fourth becomes third. This is how we handled it in 2011 and 2013 with the international riders' placing becoming unofficial. I'm stating that we should handle it exactly as we did in the past. I do agree that actually awarding international competitors would differ too much from the rest of NAUCC.

Comment 21 Jan 21:55

Dale, can you give me what the exact rule would be

Comment 22 Jan 10:29

Flatland battles and Track expert are the only places that any international rider can displace a NA rider. In Trials, Street, and X-Style finals you can always add another rider to the list. It is clear from the flatland community that they prefer allowing the international rider (either B or C) to displace the NA rider, but not be awarded the same as a NA rider. I would guess that the track community would feel differently (I have certainly heard arguments against in the recent past). I would personally prefer the track rules be the same as for flatland but feel that the competitions are different enough that it could be okay.

All of this is just about how a B or C rider can displace an A rider. With regards to awards and participation, here are my thoughts:

For individual events, B and C riders should be allowed to compete but not win awards above a NA competitor. (I.E. the "tying rules" we've used for awhile where Rider 1 gets first place and the International rider ties for 2nd with Rider 3 and rider 4 gets 3rd place.)

For group events, I think a B rider should be able to participate and that group should be treated as a normal group (i.e. North American hockey team). For simplicity, I think this should be applied to all group events. I would potentially be in favor of limiting the number of B riders in any group. (My gut here is that hockey, bball, and group freestyle should max at 1 and club should max at 2 B riders).

For C riders in a group event, that group would be treated as a non-NA competitor. Here we must again think about displacing. Should the "international" hockey or bball team be allowed to continue in the playoffs? The goal of consistency with flatland implies yes, but my gut says no.

I'm happy to draft rule text on this topic if we are starting to approach a sort of consensus similar to what I have written here.

Comment 22 Jan 10:54

Scott, I would be VERY happy if you drafted a rule based on all of this! Thank you.

Comment 22 Jan 11:30

I'll have something up by tonight.

Comment 28 Jan 19:12

Any comments on the proposed text?