General discussion about chained attack - no fine requested

[Radunion]

We discussed accidental chained team attacks in the 18 h Bretagne Classic - Ouest-France. In my opinion. we should make it completely clear that you have to drop a rider who has not made a single km of tempo in the fair play rules.

In the concrete example, OLcycle made a couple of km tempo with Zhafri Sumareh before he dropped him and kept the 2 other riders in front. As this did not influence the race no fine is required, but an update of the fair play rules would help. This is not the first discussion on how to handle this rule and what the offending team should do.

Km: 211, Steigung: 1
Vykintas Baravykas (OLcycle) attackiert
Cees Lute (Caballero) geht mit
Jakub Jankovich (r QUICK) geht mit
Bruno Neves (O Imperdor) geht mit
Gojko Randelovic (OLcycle) geht mit
Feleti Teo (bergwerk) geht mit
Neil Primrose (bergwerk) geht mit
Zhafri Sumareh (OLcycle) attackiert
Will Goodenough (bergwerk) geht mit

bergwerk(20:41): you had a helper more .... and its more like me happened the same ... and everybody says me i have to let the 2nd fall too ... so its more a interested whats now
OLcycle(20:35): @bw : the unfortunate team attack had no impact in the race results anyway
bergwerk(20:35): hot fight from Radunion ... extraclapp
Rsc Spree(20:35): GW
Enigma1(20:35): GW
OLcycle(20:34): and that costs me the win :/ not easy to cook dinner while playing :p gw !
Radunion(20:34): gw, created everything yorself and well earned
r QUICK(20:34): Thx
bergwerk(20:34): gw ... but i think the notfalling before the hill was not ok ... so let see what the forum think ...cu
OLcycle(20:31): to answer, I forgot to remove the fight on :/
Radunion(20:25): nice fight, gw to the group
r QUICK(20:24): Now I hope that was capcaukas fighting and not top form earlier
bergwerk(20:22): now yes ... hope for a comeback ... but dh really shit
OLcycle(20:22): Holiday can help too maybe ?
r QUICK(20:21): All in?
OLcycle(20:21): all in ?
OLcycle(20:21): Doy not super fit now. Takacs will be needed
Radunion(20:17): whoever wants a late attack with a rider in the second group has to bring them back
bergwerk(20:16): jepp .. really good work RU
Radunion(20:15): it is depressing, with a second sprinter with a good team this is a sprint
r QUICK(20:15): Either a fresh one or nobody ol
OLcycle(20:13): someone fresh on that +1 to try to stay away ?
Enigma1(20:10): ty
Enigma1(20:09): caballero help me
r QUICK(20:07): Wild
bergwerk(20:06): bah no Arthur infront ... better had to attac with sommersby .-)(
r QUICK(20:00): Thanks, Probably shouldn't be in front after the 7 anymore anyway
r QUICK(19:58): Somersby a bit?
Radunion(19:58): I will open a thread after the race to start a discussion and make it clear that I do not want a fine
bergwerk(19:57): but i think its not ok with ol not let him fall before the hill (in my eyes)
bergwerk(19:56): ok he not
r QUICK(19:55): Imp off 45km
bergwerk(19:55): and i go in with TEo at 231 ... and than all in or its all over anyway
OLcycle(19:53): thie groups is probably not going anywhere far anyway. making it after the 8% with or without zhafri tempo; more is highly uncertain
bergwerk(19:53): think you have to let the second fall now .... than it would be ok or?
r QUICK(19:52): Tough one
bergwerk(19:52): last time i did that ... i let the second one fall because all want it ... so i think its now on you
OLcycle(19:51): Zhafri was actually slower than if it was one of my other riders in tempo
Radunion(19:51): if this group wins I would ask it in the forum, not to punish you but to force a principal decission what is allowed
Radunion(19:49): on a other note, I will not bring this group back
OLcycle(19:49): yep, idk what to do now. I'd have dropped him immediately if realised it
Radunion(19:49): Zhafri after riding a couple of km is controversial
OLcycle(19:49): sry about that. did not realize we were not enough in front
bergwerk(19:47): i let one fall ...
OLcycle(19:47): damn, really ? do I have to drop one ?
Radunion(19:47): chained team attack I think
r QUICK(19:36): Maybe I read too late
OLcycle(19:36): I thought that was still Droppa in tempo
r QUICK(19:33): Matej is fresh
OLcycle(19:31): fresh one maybe
r QUICK(19:26): Yes
OLcycle(19:26): should have asked before the 5% :p
OLcycle(19:26): yep
r QUICK(19:25): I wait if we ride together
r QUICK(18:23): Slow race, good weather. No problem
OLcycle(18:21): 40min early !
bergwerk(18:20): oh shit ... thought started at 19
Radunion(18:17): actually thought about making this his last team but I was already one helper down and would have a major problem to bring the classics back and control the race
Radunion(18:15): but I understand it is tricky, with a classics team it is tempting to ride for it
OLcycle(18:14): Fourier would have been perfect for today
Radunion(18:14): dismantled my hillsprinter team earlier this month
OLcycle(18:12): I hesisated to take my sprinter. but I thought there will be more hillsprinters here
Radunion(18:10): I am sad nobody else believes a sprint is possible. This is of course a self fullfilling prophecy
OLcycle(18:09): Choo is sad no one wants to join him
Radunion(18:03): hi
Rsc Spree(18:02): heho
OLcycle(18:00): hi !
r QUICK(17:52): Hi

[flockmastoR]

A chained team attack is always accidental. So I don't understand the term in that context.

The team doing a chained team attack has to act accordingly to restore the race situation as if the team attack wouldn't have happened. That cannot be defined in a simple rule of action and it is also depending on what the opponents believe to be "the right action". In most cases it is pretty clear though: Drop a rider that didn't interfere in the group action in front. Bergwerk did act according to that rule, he also had 3 guys following and dropped a rider immediately, so here no discussion, he certainly didn't profit from the illegal action. OL on the other hand is a borderline case IMO. He rode 4 km with the guy that he dropped later. Not influencing the outcome, still unaccurate to drop the guy that has ridden already.

But coming back to the question: No clear rule of action possible, what happens when you attack prior to a hard km and then there is a hard sieb. Where to drop what rider than? I am a fan of the race chat. Discuss these cases together and come to the conclusion of what is the right action. Are there managers who don't accept what the discussed best action is: Feel free to ask the FPC. This is also the best way how newcomers can learn what the rule means in reality, what it is meant for and what the usual way of reacting is. You had 5 teams with more than 1500 races, I bet this is not the first chained team attack that you all had to deal with!

[lennylenny]

A chained team attack is always accidental. So I don't understand the term in that context.

I have seen intentional chained team attacks before, especially during GTs where some teams hang like 4 riders on the leader of the mountain jersey before km1 and then a big group goes at km1

[flockmastoR]

A chained team attack is always accidental. So I don't understand the term in that context.

I have seen intentional chained team attacks before, especially during GTs where some teams hang like 4 riders on the leader of the mountain jersey before km1 and then a big group goes at km1

Ok maybe the wrong term. They are passive not active.

[bergwerk cycling]

I remember a race that was exactly the same... I rode only 1!!! Kilometer because I hadn't seen it that quickly. Then I dropped him and there was a huge uproar... so I "had" to drop the second one too! That happens here not after a longer time ...
The advantage here was clearly that one more helper got over the mountain and then he also drove faster... so it wasn't entirely insignificant.

So 2 same events with different outcomes... don't demand a punishment, just want clarification

[flockmastoR]

I remember a race that was exactly the same... I rode only 1!!! Kilometer because I hadn't seen it that quickly. Then I dropped him and there was a huge uproar... so I "had" to drop the second one too! That happens here not after a longer time ...
The advantage here was clearly that one more helper got over the mountain and then he also drove faster... so it wasn't entirely insignificant.

So 2 same events with different outcomes... don't demand a punishment, just want clarification

Well this is exactly why I believe that the race chat is the best tool to avoid these situations in the future. Bergwerk you did a km of tempo dropped him back, other teams where not happy with it. You dropped another one to be on the safe side. Now you knew what to do immediately. On the other hand, here nobody is doing a "huge uproar". You just want to be given absolution for actions after an illegal team attack. You don't even damand a fine, nor an investigation. That's not really how it's supposed to work imo.

Anyways, as bergwerk feels unfairly treated (which I can understand), we will investigate the case!

[bergwerk cycling]

I found it very strange at the time that I was immediately whistled back and this time no one said anything... I'm actually just concerned about whether OL should have dropped him or not?
I understood it that way back then!

So that I'm sure what to do next time.

[team fl]

So that I'm sure what to do next time.

-> restore the race situation as if the team attack wouldn't have happened. as fast as possible. as easy as that .

And: different player groups react differently. it's a human issue I guess.

[Gipfelstuermer]

So that I'm sure what to do next time.

-> restore the race situation as if the team attack wouldn't have happened. as fast as possible. as easy as that .

Should be logical to everyone, but to make it 100% clear, I can add that to the official fairplay rules.

[flockmastoR]

So that I'm sure what to do next time.

-> restore the race situation as if the team attack wouldn't have happened. as fast as possible. as easy as that .

Should be logical to everyone, but to make it 100% clear, I can add that to the official fairplay rules.

Unsure if this helps or just makes it more complicated. If you formulate it vague [restore race situation], the discussion remains if it was the proper reaction, if you just write "drop a rider that hasn't riden in the group so far" it is too specific and might not help in all cases. So it will just make the fairplay rule longer without "making it completely clear" as was the goal of Radunion with this topic.

I would probably add a view Q&A in the section and give a hint about it in the fairplay rules. There we could discuss some realistic situations with proper reactions and inproper reactions as examples.

[Robyklebt]

You just want to be given absolution for actions after an illegal team attack. You don't even damand a fine, nor an investigation. That's not really how it's supposed to work imo.

Anyways, as bergwerk feels unfairly treated (which I can understand), we will investigate the case!

Why would he demand a fine. He wants clarity, not fines. What he's mentioning is the reaction in the chat, that it was different in his case than it was now. So he wants to know if it is indeed required to drop a guy that hasn't ridden after the teamattack or not. And he feels unfairly treated by the chat, different race I presume, not the FPC.

Uncommon sense, since what we usually call common sense seems to be rather uncommon, would suggest that while an addition of that in the rules would clarify things, it would also not necessarily make races "fairer", "juster" or what you want to call it. Sometimes you just aren't fast enough to react. Let your last one ride, take others out, count how many riders, uh, shit, 30" tact, it was a teamattack and now the guy I wanted to drop rode back up, have to drop him... if I don't I'm in trouble. If anything a fine for the designer if it happens inside the last 30km and we don't have mintact yet!

It's often clear for those in the race if the guilty manager wants to take advantage of a situation or not. So if it looked as innocent as BW claimsit was in his case, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with him dropping the guy who rode. And wouldn't have the slightest problem not dropping another one if it happened to me, bring it here, discuss it here. With a fix rule it's bring it here, decide how high the fine should be.

[cataracs]

A chained team attack is always accidental. So I don't understand the term in that context.

I have seen intentional chained team attacks before, especially during GTs where some teams hang like 4 riders on the leader of the mountain jersey before km1 and then a big group goes at km1

Hanging 4 riders doesn't mean intentional team attack, it just helps disactivating the rule.

[flockmastoR]

A chained team attack is always accidental. So I don't understand the term in that context.

I have seen intentional chained team attacks before, especially during GTs where some teams hang like 4 riders on the leader of the mountain jersey before km1 and then a big group goes at km1

Hanging 4 riders doesn't mean intentional team attack, it just helps disactivating the rule.

Thanks for the reminder on the stupidity of the exceptions! Reminds me on the "non team attack - 8 riders of one team" attack.

[Quick]

So that I'm sure what to do next time.

-> restore the race situation as if the team attack wouldn't have happened. as fast as possible. as easy as that .

Should be logical to everyone, but to make it 100% clear, I can add that to the official fairplay rules.

Sorry, thats not clear to me. The problem we're discussing: You have a teamattack. 1 bad rider 2 good ones. The bad rider starts riding because that's what bad riders are there for and behind is nobody chasing.
Now after 2km we see team attack. Is the one fit rider now doomed and has to fall or can it still be resolved "logically" because 2km is no real advantage?

If so when does it become an advantage?

If you meant to add:" All riders which took an active part(making tempo, sprinting) during the team attack cannot be used as dropback to resolve the team attack" then I understand you.

[team fl]

If so when does it become an advantage?

The answer is, as usual: It depends. It depends on the group, the race situation, the reaction in the peloton, etc. Hence it's hard to have a very strict and fix rule about it, because the outcome will be different in different situations. Or in other words: The km when it becomes an advantage may differ. So I am against a strict criteria for resovling the situation (after x km, before the next climb, this or that rider should fall back).

And as a forbidden chained team attack is not planned (usually), it takes a few seconds to realise, a few seconds more to react and in my case (lazy guy) the min tact not to be fully stressed. Of course, the best solution would be to act immediatly within the 30 seconds after the attack. But then again, many players don't even get the rules straight.

In my opinion, it's like the Donkey said: "It's often clear for those in the race if the guilty manager wants to take advantage of a situation or not." And most of the times it is also clear if a player is willing to resolve the situation or not.

In the particular case of OL, it seems that his opponents are mostly okay with how the situation was dealt with. So in my book, that's fine (from a pure players standpoint). I think it would have been better, if he'd let fall one of the riders that didn't make tempo right after the attack.

What might help a bit could be adding examples to the rule on how you can resolve a race situation ("best pracices").

[flockmastoR]

FPC decision: No penalty, please be careful in future to drop a rider who has not become active in the group. Although in this case a rider was dropped who was riding tempo, the FPC sees no advantage in this and the reaction was timely and appropriate.

As mentioned, each case will be examined individually. If, for example, such an action occurs repeatedly, it cannot be assumed that it happened as a result of the race situation. Of course, the opinion of the opponents is also taken into account.