How would the '3 km rule' apply here ...?

[ColinJ]

A breakaway group of 11 riders are within the last 3 km of a stage when there is a touch of wheels. One rider goes down hard, the other 10 continue.

With 2 km to go, a couple of riders jump from the group of 10 and stay away to contest the win. There is no significant gap between them in a close finish.The group of 8 roll in together 10 seconds later

The injured rider eventually limps over the line before the peloton arrive.

Because the fall took place within the final 3 km, the rider should be given the time of the group that he/she was in at the time of the crash. The problem is that the group ended up as 2 groups. Which time does the injured rider get?

Is it always the time of the fastest finisher in the pre-crash group, or that of the slowest finisher?

 

[ColinJ]

If it is the time of the slowest finisher from the original group then what happens if the fallen rider gets back to the slowest rider and overtakes him/her? Presumably the injured rider's individual time is taken, which means that time WAS lost due to the crash.

That makes me think that the rule really has to be time of the fastest finisher, but that seems a bit odd too because it would pay you to 'accidentally' fall off if you thought you couldn't stay with your group!

 

[brommers]

I think they just make it up as they go along

 

[martint235]

A breakaway group of 11 riders are within the last 3 km of a stage when there is a touch of wheels. One rider goes down hard, the other 10 continue.

With 2 km to go, a couple of riders jump from the group of 10 and stay away to contest the win. There is no significant gap between them in a close finish.The group of 8 roll in together 10 seconds later

The injured rider eventually limps over the line before the peloton arrive.

Because the fall took place within the final 3 km, the rider should be given the time of the group that he/she was in at the time of the crash. The problem is that the group ended up as 2 groups. Which time does the injured rider get?

Is it always the time of the fastest finisher in the pre-crash group, or that of the slowest finisher?

From reading the rule, my understanding is that the rider is given a placing according to where they were at the time of the crash. So to make it easier, rather than 2 riders escaping, let's assume a split of 5 gets away.

If at the time of the crash, the rider was 3rd in the group of 10, he'll be given a time equivalent to that place. If 6th similarly. It gets a little convoluted if there is a further break of 2 from the front 5. In this case 3rd place becomes the leader of the 2nd group and would get that time.

That's my understanding anyway

 

[oldroadman]

From reading the rule, my understanding is that the rider is given a placing according to where they were at the time of the crash. So to make it easier, rather than 2 riders escaping, let's assume a split of 5 gets away.

If at the time of the crash, the rider was 3rd in the group of 10, he'll be given a time equivalent to that place. If 6th similarly. It gets a little convoluted if there is a further break of 2 from the front 5. In this case 3rd place becomes the leader of the 2nd group and would get that time.

That's my understanding anyway

Gets the time of the "main group". All this bit about being "3rd at the time" is simply not manageable. Fall off in the last 3km and it's the time of the group which you are with at that point, so if it's 10 and subsequently splits, you get the back group time. Think it through, before the 3km rule there was a 1km rule, and before that, nothing. So the rule is there to see that a rider who falls does not lose time. It recognises that in the final, some of the sprint trains are a bit crazy, it can get a bit dangerous, there are some mad lead out men and sprinters who take daft chances, and silly falls happen. Mind, if you fall at 3.1km to go, you are on your own.....but at that point it isn't quite so mad as later. It does seem to me that the newer generation of riders have a deal less respect for each other than in previous times, when people recognised that everyone in the peloton was trying to make a living. What is missing is a dominant patron to get a grip on things, like Hinault used to do. Anyone getting daft got a right sorting out by Le Blaireau!

 

[Crandoggler]

I think they just make it up as they go along

Seems about right.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

<snip>.....but at that point it isn't quite so mad as later. It does seem to me that the newer generation of riders have a deal less respect for each other than in previous times, when people recognised that everyone in the peloton was trying to make a living. What is missing is a dominant patron to get a grip on things, like Hinault used to do. Anyone getting daft got a right sorting out by Le Blaireau!

Sagan made that point on the TV the other day, he pointed to his earpiece and said that was the patron of the race with the individual DS's dictating how their riders behaved.

I can't see how group position at the time of the fall could be truly fair if they were all still taking turns at the front and purely by chance you'd just hit the front or had peeled off and were last on the road but doing your bit as an equal in the group. just my gut feeling on it. has the 3km rule ever been imposed when there has been a tiny finishing split and the final sprint has edged say a second over the peloton?

 

[martint235]

I also didn't realise until Monday that if a stage is classed as an uphill finish the 3km rule doesn't apply anyway

 

[jowwy]

If it is the time of the slowest finisher from the original group then what happens if the fallen rider gets back to the slowest rider and overtakes him/her? Presumably the injured rider's individual time is taken, which means that time WAS lost due to the crash.

That makes me think that the rule really has to be time of the fastest finisher, but that seems a bit odd too because it would pay you to 'accidentally' fall off if you thought you couldn't stay with your group!

if you accidently fall off or are deemed the reason for the crash, you get your actual finish time.....which stops people from faking crashes etc etc

 

[oldroadman]

Sagan made that point on the TV the other day, he pointed to his earpiece and said that was the patron of the race with the individual DS's dictating how their riders behaved.

I can't see how group position at the time of the fall could be truly fair if they were all still taking turns at the front and purely by chance you'd just hit the front or had peeled off and were last on the road but doing your bit as an equal in the group. just my gut feeling on it. has the 3km rule ever been imposed when there has been a tiny finishing split and the final sprint has edged say a second over the peloton?

Yep. Just remember according to the regulations, all riders in a group are on the same time anyway.

 

[oldroadman]

if you accidently fall off or are deemed the reason for the crash, you get your actual finish time.....which stops people from faking crashes etc etc

That's a new one on me - where's that in the UCI regs? Sounds a bit too judgement subjective for the WMOA (wise men of Aigle).
The way things work today with all the pushing and shoving, GC teams trying to get their man to the front and mixing it with the sprint team trains, fall offs are sadly not a rare thing. If you are deemed at fault in a sprint, then it's relegation to last of the group you are in and a fine.

 

[jowwy]

That's a new one on me - where's that in the UCI regs? Sounds a bit too judgement subjective for the WMOA (wise men of Aigle).
The way things work today with all the pushing and shoving, GC teams trying to get their man to the front and mixing it with the sprint team trains, fall offs are sadly not a rare thing. If you are deemed at fault in a sprint, then it's relegation to last of the group you are in and a fine.

thats what they stated in commentary on monday

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Yep. Just remember according to the regulations, all riders in a group are on the same time anyway.

Yep, understand fully, With the group comment I was reflecting on the prior question if the say 10 man at 3km group had split further and was down to e.g. 5 man lead group with a time difference ahead of the rest at the line. If you'd been chain ganging at 3km when you fell it is an accidental by-product of teamwork if you are 1st, 5th or 10th and which side of a subsequent split you'd be adjudged to be timed to.

Also you could argue if particular end position is allocated to fallers do any jersey points become theirs too?

I suspect I'm overthinking it all though.

 

[Hont]

A breakaway group of 11 riders are within the last 3 km of a stage when there is a touch of wheels. One rider goes down hard, the other 10 continue.

With 2 km to go, a couple of riders jump from the group of 10 and stay away to contest the win. There is no significant gap between them in a close finish.The group of 8 roll in together 10 seconds later....

Reading this, I had a flashback shudder to school exams. I was half expecting the question to be "who finished 12th"?

 

[martint235]

I think the key thing to remember is: if anyone starts arguing about whether they should be given the time of the first split or the second split since they fell, the race organiser could just say "Look do you want the time of the second split or your actual time? Your choice."