FIS Timing Working Group
The regular meeting of the FIS Timing Working Group was held at the Fall FIS meetings in Zurich, Switzerland, September 29th, 2005
Present:
Chairman: Francesco CATTANEO - FIS
Members:
Ted SAVAGE - CAN
Allen CHURCH - USA
Pierre BLANC - FRA
Serge CARNAL - SUI
Excused:
Albert VETTER - AUT
Season 2004-2006
Timing Report analysis of the 2,084 FIS sanctions starts in Alpine races from last season had been reviewed by the group by country. With some exceptions that required some prodding in ITA and FRA we note that 100% of events submitted the required timing reports. The types of problems noted on the forms and reported by FIS TDs continue to focus on two areas:
1) Improper use of Finish photocells
2) Some use of non-homologated equipment (Photocells and Start Gates)
The Nations reporting the more serious issue of continued use of non-homologated equipment include mostly ITA and AUT. The issues in ITA and AUT surround the use of non-homologated models of MicroGate photocells (one should note that this all comes from the same AUT/ITA boarder region). FIS TD's from those events will be notified of their failure to control this requirement. FIS TD education will be alerted to solve this lingering annoyance. Future events that do not completely use homologated timers, start gates and photocells will be recommended for non-classification for FIS points.
External Testing of Equipment
The process of homologating timing devices by third parties has been defined and will be engaged. The report form which must be filled by the homologation institution is ready. The Chairman thanked the efforts of Allen Church and Ted Savage for their ongoing technical contributions in getting these specifications into engineering language and format.
Schladming Case from 2005
The Chairman reviewed the difficult subject of the media uproar and ITA protest over timing problems noted at the Schladming WC in 2005. Lost in the reporting was the fact that no times were missed and that only careful work by the SIEMENS timing team saved the data that allowed for the proper correction of times immediately at the event. The fact that ITA decided to protest over "procedure" was noted as a resort that should be permitted to all stake holders and came as no surprise. All times came from system A. External 3rd party reviews by university-based experts in Austria and Switzerland, and internal FIS examination of the core data, video tape review and hand timing data all supported the work of the timing done at Schladming.
A discussion as to the incredible depth of misunderstanding that exists in this area followed, not the least of which is evident in those who are working for FIS and yet who have no technical training and who are simply not qualified to comment on matters of this technical nature. From the outset, when technical problems or questions arise the FIS has and does use 3rd party experts to review and account for any apparent discrepancies. This has happened before, happened here and will happen again.
Indeed FIS even convened its own panel to review the Appeal of the Jury decision to accept that timing as modified at the event. It was noted that even with this process in place, the actions of the FIS Media Director while these impartial investigations were ongoing were disruptive, misleading and in the end proven to be dead-wrong.
Timing Working Group members strongly advised the Chairman to report to the Alpine Committee that when issues of a technical nature arise in the future (this would apply to all technical committees and Working Groups) that only those who actually know a donut from a hole in the ice keep their opinions to themselves and let the data speak for itself as reviewed by the experts appointed by FIS. We have a sport that has audit processes in place that allows for a proper forensic review of the judgement data. This almost unique advance in sport should be protected rather than subverted. Prejudice has no place in a purely technical discussion and banner hangers should stick to hanging banners.
Finish Line Design
The need to have "reasonable" maximum distances (width) at the finish line with respect to finish photocell separation needs to be addressed by World Cup organizers and the FIS Professionals responsible for Race Direction and Safety.
It was noted that in Soelden and Semmering 2004 for example there was no provision for DNF racers to gain access to the finish area to exit to the media zone. All DNF skiers in the GS courses had to cross the photocell finish line and in some cases did so within fractions of a second of other athletes executing valid finishes. At Semmering the Race Director (Hoch) insisted that the finish line photocells be placed at a mind-boggling 68m width. When fog rolled in for the night race it was only by pure chance that the limited visibility at times did not cause the finish photocells not to be able to "see" the finishing racers. If you can't "see" 68m then the cells can't "see" 68m.
This type of inflexibility by professionals for technical requirements unnecessarily puts races at risk. A relationship between the race directors and the timing services providers and the media installers must allow for the respect of basic technical minimums and maximums, particularly if the weather is not perfect.
DNF racers must be able to access the finish without entering the finish photocells and max photocell widths at the finish must be reasonable (suggested max = 30m).
Line Scan Camera
The use of a dedicated line-scan camera on the finish line is currently not an official solution and cannot be retained as official timing device. However, both Serge Carnal and Ted Savage indicated that they would be using such technologies in selected future World Cup events in 2005-2006 and would report back on the success of the devices relative to classic photocell technology as currently Homolgated.
These devices, when synchronized in Time-of-Day to the A and B systems would provide photographic evidence of finish times to 1/1000th or better optical resolution as seen in athletics and cycling etc. This could also be done at the start but failures there are far less likely and atmospheric conditions are less conducive to such an optical-based installation.
Test data from the Alpine World Championships in Vail 1999 is already on file with Ted Savage and was proven there to be exactly accurate to the photocell data of the main timing system. Ted acknowledged that in that case a very experienced line-scan camera operator, Mr. Fred PATTON of the USA had been responsible for collecting this excellent data and that perhaps not every installation would be capable of such refined results from this source. Regardless, test data from this year would allow us to perhaps add a level of optical protection to assist in situations where the finish photocells exhibit problems (Schladming) or actually miss a time (Val D'Isere) or the main system crashes (GS Salt Lake Olympics).
Host Broadcaster
More discussion about assistance from other data sources that would help provide evidence of performance was discussed. It was noted that the technically improper use of side-by-side video review is often used as "proof" by the media.
In fact, although a "genlocked" video signal from an NTSC or PAL-based live broadcast will provide a very good comparative view, unless the exact frame time-code can be assigned to the exact moment that the start wand triggers, the relative performance analysis at the finish in frame-by-frame video review is USELESS. In many cases broadcast video from the start does not include a view of the start wand being struck by the starting racer. The subsequent flawed attempt at meaningful on-course analysis, particularly at the finish, of two athletes on the same course is thus fatally compromised in terms of a final time.
If one had a video frame number from a live genlocked broadcast of the start wand being triggered, and one had a side view of the skiers finishing (rather than the typical head view we always see) THEN you would actually be able to say with a degree of certainty what a racer's time was to appox. 2/100ths of a second (in PAL). Anything else is pure speculation and largely irrelevant, but it sure makes for good TV.
It was recommended that host broadcasters be educated on these technical facts by FIS Media so that in cases where this technique might be useful that we actually have some useful data to work from rather than flawed engineering held up as solid evidence that is no use to anyone.
New Homologations
Radiocom timing device (FRA) will be homologated as soon as Radiocom certifies us that the new device is the same as the actual Datasprint core timer previously examined and certified.
The FIS Timing Working Group would like to remind all FIS TDs and race organizers that there are no homologated WIRELESS systems approved by FIS as claimed by some manufacturers. There are some timing systems that are homologated for use that also include wireless capabilities (Ex: DataSprint and TAG Heuer HL 650). They are homologated because their core timers meet our technical criteria. Their radio and data transmission systems are not our concern. Complete details on how to use ANY Homolgated FIS timer in a wireless configuration for level 3 or 4 events are available on the FIS website.
END
Original Post
