New dropped equipment rule

PUClimber

Active Member
Last weekend at the Ohio chapter it was brought to the attention the new rule on dropped equipment which isn't stated very clear. It's rule like 2.32 I believe. It talks about their being a need for an all clear for a potential of a fallen object but it was stated that the purpose of this new rule change was to make it to lessen the dq's and so you can call stand clear after you have dropped a piece of equipment as long as it is called before it hits the ground. I think that if you drop something like a footlock prussik rope or like gloves. I think hardware that possesses a potential hazard to someone should be a dq since it is a mistake and is a hazard to judges. Any thoughts or opinions on this new rule change?
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
No...but how about getting an avie that isn't so hard to have in my peripheral vision! Blechhhh!
 

Blinky

New Member
I think if you call it, no DQ... let'em climb. But they shouldn't get off scott free. There should be a penalty.
 

SirTreeRat

New Member
You drop something = DQ

It's part of the comp. to keep control of yourself & your equipment. What's next, being able to use a lift truck for each event? come on

I don't like this new rule one bit.
 

Norm_Hall

Active Member
[ QUOTE ]
Last weekend at the Ohio chapter it was brought to the attention the new rule on dropped equipment which isn't stated very clear. It's rule like 2.32 I believe. It talks about their being a need for an all clear for a potential of a fallen object but it was stated that the purpose of this new rule change was to make it to lessen the dq's and so you can call stand clear after you have dropped a piece of equipment as long as it is called before it hits the ground. I think that if you drop something like a footlock prussik rope or like gloves. I think hardware that possesses a potential hazard to someone should be a dq since it is a mistake and is a hazard to judges. Any thoughts or opinions on this new rule change?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's NOT what the change states. Tyler, please read the rules before you post something you know nothing about.

It's rule 2.2.34. An audible warning such as "Stand Clear" shall be given in any situation when there is POTENTIAL for an item (any equipment or part of the tree) to fall.

2.2.32 states "A contestant will be disqualified for dropping a piece of equipment while WORKING ALOFT."

Come on guys, it's as easy as pushing a few keys to look up the rule changes. www.isa-arbor.com; far right "Tree Climbing Championship"; "Rules and Regulations".
 

PUClimber

Active Member
Norm I agree with you totally on what is stated in the rules but this is how it was brought up by Rich. This is what was told to us at the judges meeting that came from Rich which was told it came from Scott Prophet. I agree and have read the rule. Paul and I discussed this and even questioned Rich on the rule and that was the rule and what was used at the Ohio chapter. So if anyone on the rules committe can clarify this for sure it would be great.
 

rich_h

Well-Known Member
These new rule changes were explained by the head judge at the Charlotte TCC and the message that came across to me was that the intention was to avoid having climbers being disqualified for dropping gloves and other items while working aloft. I did not have a current copy of the rules while at Charlotte but after looking at it recently it didn't seem that the written rules matched up with what I thought was the intended purpose. I decided to follow along with the intent of the Charlotte rules explaination due to the fact that better minds than mine were behind running that comp. It may be that this interpretation of the rules was incorrect, but it does not affect the results from the Ohio comp as every climber and judge was on the same page in regards to how we intended to interpret the rules changes. Luckily no one dropped anything while working aloft to put the rules to the test.

If we could get some official clarification of these new rules changes it would be super helpful prior to ITCC.
 

rich_h

Well-Known Member
Norm,

I think the confusing issue here is why rule 2.2.34 was added to the rule book if it does not change anything in respect to a climber dropping a piece of equipment while working aloft? Every event refers back to 2.2.32 under disqualification for dropping equipment which pretty much makes 2.2.34 a moot point. It seems to me that there is "potential" for an item to drop every second of every event of the competition if you include in safety glasses, gloves, and any other equipment.

If we could clarify the intent of 2.2.34 more clearly maybe it will help clear up the rule change. Any information you could give would be greatly appreciated.
 

SirTreeRat

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily no one dropped anything while working aloft to put the rules to the test.



[/ QUOTE ]

Brian did drop a (big) piece of equipment at AR, yet he was not DQ'd.

He ended up taking 1 place in that event.
 

rich_h

Well-Known Member
[/ QUOTE ]Brian did drop a (big) piece of equipment at AR, yet he was not DQ'd.

He ended up taking 1 place in that event.

[/ QUOTE ]


"It may be that this interpretation of the rules was incorrect, but it does not affect the results from the Ohio comp as every climber and judge was on the same page in regards to how we intended to interpret the rules changes."


The questions that you had regarding this rule were brought up to me the morning of the comp with very little time before we were to start. As I stated, my interpretation was probably wrong, but changing the way we we going to run this event in the last second doesn't seem like a good idea to me considering that all the climbers we playing by the same rules and it could have been very confusing to them and the judges to make any alterations.
 

Blinky

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily no one dropped anything while working aloft to put the rules to the test.



[/ QUOTE ]

Brian did drop a (big) piece of equipment at AR, yet he was not DQ'd.

He ended up taking 1 place in that event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Skillin won the AR at Charlotte. I guess he didn't have the rule book in his back pocket at the time.
 

Norm_Hall

Active Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily no one dropped anything while working aloft to put the rules to the test.



[/ QUOTE ]

Brian did drop a (big) piece of equipment at AR, yet he was not DQ'd.

He ended up taking 1 place in that event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Skillin won the AR at Charlotte. I guess he didn't have the rule book in his back pocket at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that noted on his scoresheet? Who were the judges at AR?
 

Winterbush

New Member
Rules of competition:
1. The head judge has the final call.
2. if there are any questions refer to rule #1

No seriously, I think the rule was ammended to eliminate people being dq for instances of setting up in a tree such as work climb, where someone might throw a rope bag from aloft. Not an instance where the event is being scored/timed and someones hard hat fall's off or they drop their handsaw.
 

SirTreeRat

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily no one dropped anything while working aloft to put the rules to the test.



[/ QUOTE ]

Brian did drop a (big) piece of equipment at AR, yet he was not DQ'd.

He ended up taking 1 place in that event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Skillin won the AR at Charlotte. I guess he didn't have the rule book in his back pocket at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?
 

judge

Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last weekend at the Ohio chapter it was brought to the attention the new rule on dropped equipment which isn't stated very clear. It's rule like 2.32 I believe. It talks about their being a need for an all clear for a potential of a fallen object but it was stated that the purpose of this new rule change was to make it to lessen the dq's and so you can call stand clear after you have dropped a piece of equipment as long as it is called before it hits the ground. I think that if you drop something like a footlock prussik rope or like gloves. I think hardware that possesses a potential hazard to someone should be a dq since it is a mistake and is a hazard to judges. Any thoughts or opinions on this new rule change?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's NOT what the change states. Tyler, please read the rules before you post something you know nothing about.

It's rule 2.2.34. An audible warning such as "Stand Clear" shall be given in any situation when there is POTENTIAL for an item (any equipment or part of the tree) to fall.

2.2.32 states "A contestant will be disqualified for dropping a piece of equipment while WORKING ALOFT."

Come on guys, it's as easy as pushing a few keys to look up the rule changes. www.isa-arbor.com; far right "Tree Climbing Championship"; "Rules and Regulations".

[/ QUOTE ]

what norm says is correct.
rule 2.2.32 defines the time when you will be disqualified or warned
rule 2.2.33 lets you lower soft items with premission
rule 2.2.34 applies to all events where there is the POTENTIAL to hit some one on the ground, such as hitting the bell in the work climb, pulling a bag out in the throw line ect,
 

rich_h

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification Craig. Clearly my interpretation was incorrect and it won't happen again. As for the Ohio comp I strongly feel that even though, thanks ot me, we did not abide by the rule book 100 % the overall outcome is not affected since the competitors were all on the same page and no one had any unfair advantage with this misinterpreted rule in place.
 

PUClimber

Active Member
I was one of the judges for the AR. It was taken into consideration for points but not noted being written in. Thank you all for the clarification and everything.
 

Mark Chisholm

Administrator
[ QUOTE ]
No...but how about getting an avie that isn't so hard to have in my peripheral vision! Blechhhh!

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you dislike Mahk Adams?
 

Blinky

New Member
We had a guy at the Southern drop an eight getting ready to descend on the footlock, he failed to call it since he didn't know it fell. The HJ recommended that I not DQ him since it wasn't part of the timed event. I agreed. No DQ.

I like the idea of the climber demonstrating self rescue from footlocking but if it's not part of the score, should we make them do it?
 
Top