Sheffield Urban Race - 3rd Sept

[Homer]

"Forbidden to Cross" would generally mean one's body must not cross the barrier. It is at least debateable whether putting one's arm across a barrier is also forbidden.

I've always understood that reaching through or over a "forbidden to cross" barrier was prohibited. Now that a lack of clarity in the rules has been highlighted by the Chair of IOF Rules Commission, is it too much to hope that the rules will be swiftly redrafted to be explicit?

I have always thought so too. I am very surprised to hear David Rosen suggesting that this may not be the case.
I have just had a quick look at ISSOM and it only says that it is forbidden to cross; no mention of reaching through or leaning over. This needs to be clarified quickly.
To me it is obvious that reaching through should not be allowed as there is no way of telling from the map whether it will be possible to reach through before you get there. To allow it would therefore introduce an element of random unfairness.

[LostAgain]

If it was that "clear" to you how come you arrived at the wrong side of the fence?

I think you need to take account of

a) Less venerable orienteers than yourself who may not yet have accumulated all the relevant rules in their brains
b)Newcomers to the sport of Orienteering (I brought one myself to the Lincoln event - he wouldnt have known not to do that)
c)Experienced orienteers trying urban for the first time.

My arrival at the wrong end of the fence was my own fault, I had not read the control description stating which side of the fence the control was on.

I'm certainly not an experienced Urbanite and would be one of the first to ridicule this side of our sport ! Looking at the people who have clearly put their hand through most/if not all are more expeienced at urban than I.

If Dave Rosen's interpretaion of uncrossable is wide spread then this is more likely the cause for "cheating" rather than not understanding the uncrossable feature.

[david_rosen]

I have just had a quick look at ISSOM and it only says that it is forbidden to cross; no mention of reaching through or leaning over. This needs to be clarified quickly.

It is not really question of clarifying the rules. And as I previously mentioned,

I've often encountered controls in urban/park areas where the control has deliberately been placed just the 'wrong' side of an uncrossable fence in order to minimise the chance of vandalism, and where the only way to punch it is to lean across or reach through.

sometimes it is convenient for the planner to place the box just in an out-of-bounds area.

The point is that planners shouldn't tempt competitors to do something questionable or illegal.

[frostbite]

There is nothing on the map to indicate whether an uncrossable barrier is “reachable across”. Navigation should be on the basis of what is on the map, not taking a chance as to whether you can reach the control through/across the barrier. If it is possible to reach across then that will depend on the height and arm-length of the competitor, or whether they can squeeze their hand through a gap. The only way to make it fair is to insist that everybody navigates to the correct side of the barrier and takes their whole body with them.

I don’t do many urban events (and didn't compete in this one) but I do read Nopesport and that interpretation of the rule would appear to have been the consensus up to the point when David Rosen found himself on the wrong side of a fence.

Oops – just seen his latest post. Now it is the planner’s fault for tempting him. Others managed to resist the temptation.

[buzz]

Chair
IOF Rules Commission

David - looks like you're in a good position to get the rules clarified!

And while you're at can you have a word with someone in IOF about Olive Green and colour blindness! Happy to provide some background and suggested changes.

[AndyC]

I'm sure somebody has suggested this intrepretation elsewhere.
The only thing which completely covers the exact course in any event is the competitor's SI or Emit card. Therefore that can be consider "the competitor" in this discussion. To reach a control on the wrong side of an uncrossable feature the card has to cross the feature (even if the body to which it is associated does not) therefore "the competitor" has crossed the feature and is liable to DSQ.

To take the "I can reach through" argument ad absurdam what if you put your contol on a telescopic pole giving you twelve foot arms? What if you placed your card under a remote control model helicopter?

Wrong side of an uncrossable feature should be DSQ IMHO

[Electrocuted]

And while you're at can you have a word with someone in IOF about Olive Green and colour blindness! Happy to provide some background and suggested changes.

My other half who is colour blind has issues with this too. He struggles to tell the difference between open and out of bounds.

[mikey]

Wrong side of an uncrossable feature should be DSQ IMHO

Absolutely.

Given the fiasco in the World Championships sprint qualification races and the new ambiguity now arising in this thread about uncrossable features, I suggest the IOF rules committee gives a bit of clarification.

Of course, if they'd used touch free emit at Sheffield (an excellent race along with Lincoln), I am fairly sure my emit card would have registered the control from the wrong side of the uncrossable fence. Then what....

[pigweed]

If a boundary is marked as forbidden to cross I would take that as meaning I could not take my whole body (torso and legs) across it but it wouldn't preclude my reaching across with my arms. This is as it says "forbidden to cross" and I take "cross" to mean move entirely from one side to the other.

The Planner and Controller should foresee that the circumstance where a competitor can reach across to puch a control and prevent it.

[LostAgain]

The Planner and Controller should foresee that the circumstance where a competitor can reach across to puch a control and prevent it.

I think this is called Disqualifying the transgressor in the same way you would if you went through OOB or did not use the marked crossing point.

[andy]

There's an easy answer to all the control placement issues... make it absolutely unequivocal. If there is any doubt whatsoever then it should not have a control put on it.

[SJC]

Absolutely agree. If you can't reach the control through the fence then the question of whether it is allowed or not doesn't even arise.

[King Penguin]

... and when I got there it was out of reach (not that I would have tried anyway).

[PG]

As I ran along the N side of the fence/wall by 208 I could see that the SI box was (I thought deliberately) placed so that one could easily put one's arm through and punch.

The control was placed at the limit of a security wire, about 80cm from the fence. If it was easy to punch by reaching through, then someone had pulled it closer. (I am pretty ape-like, but even I can't reach more than 70cm through railings). I had been kicking myself for not using two joined security wires to stop people leaning over, but if the chairman of the IOF rules commission says it is OK to pull a control closer to me (or use the fact that someone has already done so) then that wouldn't have been enough. Maybe I should take a fishing rod with me next time I compete at an urban race

There's an easy answer to all the control placement issues... make it absolutely unequivocal. If there is any doubt whatsoever then it should not have a control put on it.

Any doubt about what? Are you saying "never place a control where someone can gain an advantage by breaking the rules (as you understand them)?"

[Mrs H]

This is plainly all nonsense - I can't believe anyone in their right mind thinks it's okay to punch a control through an uncrossable feature just because they can. Given the nature of many uncrossable features (in that it is possible to cross them) the only interpretation of the rules is that all things marked as uncrossable should be thought of as a ten foot high solid brick wall.

Is the chairman of the IOF rules commission seriously suggesting otherwise or is he being naughty?