-
The problem is Pog would argue he was obstructed, but van Baarle would probably argue Pog didn't have the momentum, space nor the legs to get stuck into the sprint but that he had all three. Who is right? How would you have shuffled those four riders into lanes? Also Pogacar shouldn't even have had van Baarle near him, he should have sprinted much earlier before he was backed into two more riders. I honestly think it was pretty fair.
Interestingly, Madouas was squeezed a little too but didn't complain.
atz-
DVB clearly deviated. That’s done, right?
Pog was prevented from making forward motion. That’s clear?
If Pog had made forward motion, his front wheel would have been swept by DVB and he’d have gone down, possibly taking Madouas. I think clear, bar Madouas.
Obviously that’s just following my definitions of the terms, but the definitions help create a decision matrix. You only need obstruction OR endangering, not both.
snoops
Rule 5.1 is what the UCI has done about it, so enforcing that consistently would be a new position the sport could learn from.
What would help the enforcement of 5.1 would be lanes and definitions of obstruction and endangerment. Obstructing – preventing the ability to make forward motion? Endangering – putting a rider in a situation where forward motion would cause a crash?