Was M3 illegal!? | IFSC Rules

During the final in Meiringen, some climbers did a downward jump on M3. The IFSC rules state the boulders can’t have downward jumps… so was M3 against the rules?



You can check the rulebook here.

And make sure you don’t miss Udo Neumann’s video:


I also recommend Niklas Wiechmann’s analysis of the comp over at Beta Routesetting’s YouTube Channel.

Comments

  1. If two out of four climbers reached that zone volume with downward jump it’s strange to say the problem was not designed for downward jump…
    Maybe the rule should be changed so that *climbers* are not allowed to do downward jumps.
    Anyhow, for me the Narasaki’s solutions of the M3 (w/o downward jump) was the highlight of the evening in my eyes, even more impressive then the ‘monkey’ jumps on M2. Incredible presentation of creative, original solution with great level of strength, balance and body control.

    • AngelPalacio says:

      I think if it was designed as a jump more than two climbers would have gone for the jump. It would be like saying that the starting of M2 was designed as a slow and controlled sequence. And why would you stop climbers from jumping down? It is their decision. I can see why they shouldn’t be forced to jump down but why take away the option from them?
      And yes, Narasaki on M2 was really cool. That guy really knows how to move his body (fast, slow, whatever it is needed).

  2. You could not read setter’s mind, so you could not say if it was designed or not. Anyhow, it doesn’t really matter.
    But the *fact* is that both who tried a jump actually did it and of four who don’t only two did reach the ‘zone’. So it’s pretty safe to say jumping was easier than other variations (or at least equal).
    And no, stopping d. jumping is NOT my idea, it’s the one of IFSC (rule 7.3.1.iii)
    The rule as it is a toothless tiger. So there is no damage to cancel it. If IFSC thinks downward jumps in general (no matter of the circumstances) jeopardize climbers safety, then they should introduce different rules (see above–climbers shouldn’t be allowed to jump downwards).
    In any case, safety of climbers is setters’ responsibility (no rules can change this). If there is a possibility of downward jump (esp. in the easiest variation, as in above case) setters should be sure those downward jumps are safe.
    My guess is setters didn’t predict this jump, but it turned out that the jump was the easiest beta. But this lack of prediction in this particular case didn’t effect climbers’ safety.

    And I was talking about Narasaki’s M3 (not M2): https://youtu.be/fBS0v29rACQ?t=10309
    Though I agree his M2 was impressive, too :) https://youtu.be/fBS0v29rACQ?t=8666

    • AngelPalacio says:

      Oh, yes it was a typo, I was talking about Narasaki on M3 as well.

      I don’t think the rule aims to stop downward jumping. I think the rule aims to stop setters from forcing the climbers to do a downwards jump. In the past, that happened and it was clear that those problems were designed that way. Because the gap between the holds was so big that jumping was the only option. Those are the illegal problems.

      I’ve seen setters work on final problems, they try everything, it takes them forever to “finish” a problem. No way they didn’t see that option. In fact, the “juggy” part of the massive black volume was chalked, so I bet they tried it with the jump and chalked it in case climbers wanted to use that option.

      To me, it is very simple, either the problem is design with a downward jump or it is ok with the rules. And there’s a jury president and a technical delegate present at those events, checking the work of the setters. So they can ask them “hey guys, can you please tell me if there are solutions to this problem that don’t involve a downward jump?”. And they can say “yes, the intended sequence is weird but actually pretty easy, look (does the move)”.

      This what the technical delegate in Meiringen said about M3: “It wasn’t designed as a downwards dyno, it was a spin round face the audience boulder.”

      If people wanna create new rules (some people always want to create new rules after every world cup) that’s another topic. Perhaps, for safety reasons, there’s a need to prevent climbers from using downwards jumps. But it’s not like we have injuries every other comp due to that.

  3. Are you saying the setters lied to technical delegate?
    If you are sure they saw that option (d. jump) and the delegate said “it wasn’t designed…”, I see no other rational explanation other than setters didn’t tell the (whole) truth to the delegate.

    I also see no point saying climbers are free to down jump, but it’s forbidden for the setters to set the down jumps (as one of the options). They should be either allowed for all (setters&climbers) or forbidden for all.
    I’m not trying to create a new rule. In fact, my suggestion is to throw this toothless rule out of the rule book. In my view downward (and long sideways) jumps are the matter of setters education, selection and monitoring/control, not sth that should be forbidden by the rules (not for the setters and nor for the climbers).

    • AngelPalacio says:

      You keep mixing two different things. One thing is that the boulders can’t be designed to make the climbers do a downward jump. The other is that it is ok for the climbers to do a downward jump. That’s it.

      M3 was not designed to make the climbers do a downward jump. That’s ok.
      On M3 it was possible to do a downward jump. That’s ok
      On M3 some climbers did a downward jump. That’s ok.

      • You yourself said you are *sure* M3 was designed for d. jump: “I’ve seen setters work on final problems, they try everything, it takes them forever to “finish” a problem. No way they didn’t see that option. In fact, the “juggy” part of the massive black volume was chalked, so I bet they tried it with the jump and chalked it in case climbers wanted to use that option.”

        So, if it’s true what you are saying, that can only mean (a) the setters were intentionally breaking the rule (7.3.1.iii) or (b) they don’t know the rule (and so broke it unintentionally). If (a), they also lied to technical delegate. My opinion is they were not aware (and they didn’t lie).

        >”You keep mixing two different things. One thing is that the boulders can’t be designed to make the climbers do a downward jump. The other is that it is ok for the climbers to do a downward jump”
        I’m not mixing anything. As I said the fact is the downward jumps was possible (and probably the easiest option) to solve M3. You can’t say if it was ‘designed’ so or not (chalked edge of the volume doesn’t prove anything–it was used by Manu, who did NOT made a jump to it) and it doesn’t really matter.
        If the intention of the rules is to prevent d. jumps because they are dangerous, those jumps should be forbidden (also) for climbers. If they are OK (on setter’s discretion), they should be allowed both for setters and climbers.

        • AngelPalacio says:

          “You yourself said you are *sure* M3 was designed for d. jump”
          Really? Did I say that?

          • I *quoted* you (in the same sentence!), so you should be aware, what I mean by saying ““You yourself said you are *sure* M3 was designed for d. jump”.
            So, you explicitly said d. jumping was one of the options. If you don’t agree ‘Setting the problem with different options in mind (and chalking those options), one of them being d. jumping’ means the same as ‘The problem was designed (also) for d. jump (as one of the options)’, then we are speaking a different language.

  4. “If the intention of the rules is to prevent d. jumps because they are dangerous, those jumps should be forbidden (also) for climbers. ”
    So what happens when a climber jumps from the finish hold, do we say the top is invalid. Basically it is not possible to legislate for the incredible diversity of what the climbers will attempt. And I am glad of that.

    And by the way, the setters did not lie to me about the downward jump, I watched them test and test and test. So please retract your comment that they are either liars or ignorant.

Speak Your Mind

*