emit touch free

[NeilC]

We are *far* too keen to disqualify people for minor punching misdemeanors (snip) video evidence (snip) reinstate.

Graeme, if you can produce photographic evidence that you passed within 80cm of our last control (the one on the ditch not the one on the tree that you went to and set your tag flashing) I'll stick the medal in the post.

P.S. The publishers of the journal of which I'm an editor have good software for detecting photo-shopped images.

[Arnold]

Ah, that reminds me of my 16-year old self thinking "there must be a way I can gain an advantage here" as opposed to my now 39-year old self going "I must make sure I don't stray out of bounds"...

[graeme]

photographic evidence that you

For reasons completely opaque to me, it seems that the world prefers photos of Hollie. .

[Scott]

One other question while I'm here - on F2A all the M16s have splits to controls 19 and 20 that are 10+ seconds faster (each) than all the M35/40/45s. Did they find a secret shortcut that was later closed? cbg do you know? Thanks.

The tape blocking off the obvious illegal route wasn't there for early starters. I have no idea whether it was not put out, trampled by a competitor or removed by an inconvenienced local.

I went the long way round (14-15/16-17 on F1C), but I was definitely in the minority of the competitors who were in the vicinity at that time. I reported it at the finish but (having left out a control in my heat) it wasn't really worth it for me to make a fuss.

I would have thought it would be simple enough to DSQ anyone with unrealistically fast splits, if the organizers were so inclined. Whether it would be fair I don't know, although there is definitely precedent for DSQing people even if the impassable feature doesn't exist on the ground (e.g. a woman in a recent EOC sprint - can't remember the details).

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

And talking of things trampled on the ground...... apparently some of the controls on course 6 in the Middle were flat on the ground so for the conspiracy theorists out there ... was that another example of a GOM flinging them on the ground when they had messed up - a bit like the M50 who threw a control in the bushes at the ORingen quite a few years ago!

[graeme]

DSQing people even if the impassable feature doesn't exist on the ground (e.g. a woman in a recent EOC sprint - can't remember the details).

I know hoddy's got a girlie haircut, but that's a bit harsh.
Yes, I do know you meant AM Hausken

[Duncan]

There is lots of discussion here about people being DSQ-ed for their EMIT tag not registering a control that they feel they went to. But what about the opposite - when your EMIT tag (or any touch free technology e.g. the new touch free SPORTident) registers a control that you didn't strictly go to? I.e. picking up a control through an uncrossable boundary, you are one side, the control is the other, to actually get to it you'd maybe have a significant detour, but your tag/card picks it up because it is close enough. Does that count as visiting the control? We seem to place massive emphasis on the tag/card being the definitive record, in which case it would. And dare I say it, one could save a lot of time like this if you planned ahead, and spotted opportunities for it. Of course that isn't fair, so what is the solution? Is it the planner/organiser's responsibility to prevent this happening, e.g. by making sure that controls aren't with <max range of touch-free> of an uncrossable boundary where one could run along the other side and gain a benefit? When BOF or IOF have sanctioned the use of these touch free technologies have they given guidelines to officials on this aspect?

[roadrunner]

On the question of "can you be took quick to register":

If you run past a control within 30cm at 10m/s - and that's what our best sprinters can do over 100m, so I doubt anyone could be that quick - then you'd be within 50cm for 0.08s, which is more than the 0.07s it takes to register. So, run within 30cm of the control and you'll be fine. (This is for running straight by; if you go in and out the same way then you'd be bound to be slower IMHO.)

[Snail]

you'd be within 50cm for 0.08s, which is more than the 0.07s it takes to register

But only if your tag remains stationary relative to your body... A tag attached to the end of your arm might only be in range for say half that time - which is insufficient.

[graeme]

On the question of "can you be took quick to register":

Since dozens of people were too quick to register, it must be possible The dying control 195 shows that you can't take the spec at face value: it *was* working, just very slowly. One of my elite clubmates went back to repunch when his card didn't flash, and eventually it worked, but at a cost of 15sec and 3 places. Others who just ran on regardless weren't DQed. Its harsh to DQ someone when the unit isn't functioning properly, but even harsher to penalise someone for taking the time to do it right.

[Jagge]

Right. I have always said the there should be no feedback whatsoever. It reveals control doesn't work, so one needs to use time to try again or use back up system. And one who finds it out can tell someone that control can be skipped if we choose not to disqualify. With no feedback you can't know and no-one's time is affected by some malfunctioning gear.

[jac]

Does anyone know what happened at 195 (9 on F1A) ? Splits suggest 7 of the 18 on Men's Open mispunched but have been reinstated - was the control unit faulty?

I understand that the control was deemed to have failed through low battery power. ...

The control siting made it easy to determine that all affected competitors had visited it.

We narrowly escaped big trouble on the Sunday, then. The only other #195 unit was at the Middle road crossing, so we would have had inaccurate running times for everybody from the far start, because their road-crossing timeout could not have been calculated. By luck, the dud one was at the Sprint and not at the Middle; at least we know accurate total running times for Saturday, even with #195 failing.

[buzz]

There is lots of discussion here about people being DSQ-ed for their EMIT tag not registering a control that they feel they went to. But what about the opposite - when your EMIT tag (or any touch free technology e.g. the new touch free SPORTident) registers a control that you didn't strictly go to? I.e. picking up a control through an uncrossable boundary,

Good point.

I think we should move towards the sort of principles/spirit used in golf where the onus is on the competitor to report any breaches of the rules rather than the football approach of playing to the referees whistle. Ideally this would be policed by peer pressure but experienced individuals who are caught blatantly cheating could be named and shamed and persistent offenders banned.

[yted]

I really liked the system but there needs to be a few changes! When I look at my splits, I inadvertantly registered 9 controls over the 3 courses. Of these I only went to one deliberately (an attack point) and only noticed 3 of the 9 controls I registered. More importantly, in 3 cases I registered a "false" control less than 10 seconds before my next "proper" control. So my emit would have been already flashing and the fact that I checked was irrelevant.
The first twice, this didn't matter as I was running through the control but in the sprint final I had to go to the control and then double back to get round a hedge. So I reached out to the control and saw the flashing and turned and continued without registering at the proper control. I am quite willing to accept that this was my fault as I clearly didn't get close enough to the correct control (but don't ask me how many cm away I was or for how long my hand stopped moving).
HOWEVER, I had been told in writing in the final details: "There is no need to ensure it flashes for 10 seconds - one quick look is all that is required". So I did nothing wrong(?!). I went to the correct control and had a quick look and saw the flashing and carried on.
Changes: 5 seconds of flashing rather than 10; or controls more than 10s apart. I think the first option is better - surely 5s is long enough.
And in future let's try new stuff out in smaller events for a year or two before introducing it at a major championships. Still.... I did like the way you could run through the controls more fluently.

[graeme]

buzz: To some extent, self-policing already happens among potential winners (take a bow, Tom Lines ECKO, and try not to be bitter that everyone else in your class final cheated). In golf taking a 1 shot penalty seems proportionate, while DQing yourself from the entire competition for an accidental misdemeanour does not, especially when you're down the field in "who cares" territory.