Navigate to Finish

[Scott]

Although this is nowhere defined, it is understood that the corollary of the IOF rule above is that the last control is "the point where the orienteering ends" ... and not the Finish!

Perhaps it would be better defined rather than "understood" (by whom?). Although, for many IOF forest events, one might argue that the orienteering often seems to end a considerable distance before the last control, with the last control placed a fair way down the finish funnel and serving primarily as a photo opportunity.

The left hand extract is of a draft version of the course and shows overlapping circles (but not difficult to read) whilst the right hand one is from the final version with circles cut to avoid obscuring detail and also to clarify the run-in (unfortunately partly obscured by someone's course drawn in).

All 2000+ competitors negotiated this with ease!

With 2000+ experienced competitors, all the finish infrastructure that comes with a WMOC - and presumably no other way of entering the sports pitch - I'd also be fairly confident that that setup would be fine.

At a standard UK forest event, with the usual number of less experienced competitors and the finish looking very much like any other control stake with a kite on it, I'd be willing to put good money on a similarly barely-there final control circle the producing a fair few "ran straight to the finish" mispunches, taped route or not.

[Snail]

[Although this is nowhere defined, it is understood that the corollary of the IOF rule above is that the last control is "the point where the orienteering ends" ... and not the Finish!

Except at BAOC events, where the leg into the finish is often as navigationally challenging as any other - sometimes even harder since as already noted there is no control description

I think you mean Army events, rather than BAOC. Army events are not registered with BO, don't pay levy and often don't used BO-qualified controllers. Some of their planners are good, but others are probably less-experienced and not necessarily au-fait with BO rules. In contrast the few events that are formally organised by BAOC will be registered with BO and should follow the rules.

[DaveK]

https://www.baoc.info/calendar

Wonderful in any case. As someone said to me many years ago, 'what would we do with our midweeks without them'!

[Gnitworp]

Lose the will to live

[IanD]

I think you mean Army events, rather than BAOC. Army events are not registered with BO, don't pay levy and often don't used BO-qualified controllers. Some of their planners are good, but others are probably less-experienced and not necessarily au-fait with BO rules.

I won't argue the toss on that, beyond pointing out that I find them by looking on the BAOC website.

What I will say is that this backs up my argument on the Start Kite thread that it is foolish to expect all competitors to know all the rules. British orienteering gets a steady trickle of very welcome recruits through the army, and if they have learnt our sport at events where you don't have to go to the start kite (and do have to navigate to the finish), don't be surprised if they treat major events the same way.

[DJM]

IanD - I think you mean "Snail wrote" and not "DJM wrote"!

[IanD]

IanD - I think you mean "Snail wrote" and not "DJM wrote"!

Corrected - apologies!

[buzz]

For map scales smaller than 1:5000 (before any enlargement for e.g. older competitors), controls (including the start control flag) must not be sited within 30m of each other. When the control features are similar (not distinctly different in the terrain and/or not distinctly different on the map), the minimum straight-line distance between controls is 60m.

Note my emboldening of "controls (including the start control flag)" as this makes it clear that the Finish is not included in the separation criteria. That it is not considered in the same category as a "normal" control is confirmed by the fact that it doesn't have a control description, nor does it need to be anywhere near a mapped feature.

Hence 19.3 is irrelevant to the "navigate to Finish is dead" discussion!

Which sounds rather like the argument of a loophole lawyer trying to get someone off a speeding charge on the grounds that the repeater signs were too far apart. You have to look at the purpose and spirit of the rule, rather than try to find exemptions based on the precise wording.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent competitors visiting the wrong control without realising.

In this case the finish may not technically be a "control", but it is a stake, with a flag and a box on the top. So an object that a competitor could legitimately confuse with the control they are heading for. And it is actually more serious at the finish, because if the competitor punches there then they have finished and cannot go back if they subsequently realise their mistake.

What Pete said. Spirit, intent of rules should be everything, and yes avoiding unnecessary confusion must be the main goal.

[DJM]

Spirit, intent of rules should be everything

Nice words, but do they stand up to scrutiny? Nowhere is it hinted in the Rules that navigation continues to the Finish. However there are multiple instances where "navigation" refers to going to a control (and never to the Finish). There is no support that the "intent" of the Rules is the opposite.

"Spirit" in the context of the rules of a sport refers in the main to fair play, respect, integrity, enjoyment and teamwork. It seems far-fetched to suggest that any of these are compromised by the way we organise the Finish.

So an object that a competitor could legitimately confuse with the control they are heading for.

But (very unlikely) confusion is eliminated if there is a "prominent Finish sign" there, as strongly advised by 27.3. All clubs should have such a Finish banner so it is not difficult to deploy it.

Finally, the December 2024 CompassSport includes

27.2 should bring to a merciful end that scourge of orienteering, "navigate to finish"

[Scott]

Nowhere is it hinted in the Rules that navigation continues to the Finish.

1.1 Orienteering is a sport in which competitors navigate independently through the terrain.

[DJM]

i.e. the terrain between the start flag and the last control!

[pete.owens]

So an object that a competitor could legitimately confuse with the control they are heading for.

But (very unlikely) confusion is eliminated if there is a "prominent Finish sign" there, as strongly advised by 27.3. All clubs should have such a Finish banner so it is not difficult to deploy it.

Nope that doesn't cut it.

The competitor running to the last control as navigated close to the centre of the circle and has seen a stake with a kite and a box on the top. Even if there is a banner it will be aligned to be read from the final control - and if the competitor has arrived at the finish, rather than the last control then the chances are they will be coming from a different direction.

Even if they notice the banner, having spotted what they think is their control their focus is then planning ahead to check for the way to the finish. This will just be interpreted as an indication of which way to go.

[DJM]

and a box on the top

... labelled with the word "FINISH" ...

[pete.owens]

and a box on the top

... labelled with the word "FINISH" ...

The rule is meant to be interpreted broadly not pointing out petty differences. So you need to avoid not only identical features, but features which appear similar in the terrain. (eg ditch/gully, knoll/spur...) In this respect a stake with an O kite and a box on the top obviously falls into the category of something that is broadly similar to a control stake. That obviously includes minor details such as the control code - otherwise it would invalidate the distance rule altogether - since every box has a unique code.

Also, if you get any closer than 60m the circles overlap so much it is difficult to judge where the centre is.