Planners must place controls at each site on a course ... in such a position that the control is equally fair for competitors with either a contact or contactless Ecard
Have to agree - for forest races this might turn out to be the more significant point. Many current typical control sites may not be equally fair: ... in a small pit/depression (as opposed to on the edge), top of a knoll, one side of a stream, top/foot of a steep bank/small crag, one side of a fence/wall, adjacent to a fallen tree, etc. Particularly for older / less agile competitors.SJC wrote:This should generate enough complaints to keep the event juries occupied for many an hour.
The saving/loss here could be a lot more than the 2-3 seconds per control seen in urban/sprint races. (Although the total saving/loss relative to winning time might still be proportionately larger for a sprint race, where it can be 5-10% - enough IMHO to make it unfair).
And that's before you get on to the greater opportunity for cheating, such as being on the wrong side of not-to-be-crossaed features, or lowering your card down a crag on a long piece of string