awk wrote:The organisers gave the competitors instructions in the most appropriate place
The second-most appropriate place ?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
awk wrote:The organisers gave the competitors instructions in the most appropriate place
I think it's unfair that the organisers/planners are threatened (yet again) with being made scapegoats.
The organisers gave the competitors instructions in the most appropriate place
teaching children what will happen if you don't pay attention to the instructions.....
here is a lesson in growing up children.
graeme wrote:Dave wrote: the 100 odd page trilogy that's due to arrive for the JK this year, guess I should await my DSQ to go with it
It's all on one page.
In the urban/sprint, all the information you need to avoid "cheating" while running is on the map. Don't know about the less serious formats .
JK website wrote:The area is bisected by a small river which most competitors will cross at a compulsory point as this is deep in places and varies significantly with rainfall. There are deer fences, stock fencing and walls. Where required there are compulsory crossing points with stiles whilst other fences may be crossed with care at any point.
The second-most appropriate place ?
Quite frankly, very patronising. None of the people involved are children.here is a lesson in growing up children.
Little Hoddy wrote:If it clears anything up for anybody then I have posted my map here - https://picasaweb.google.com/1101687420 ... 0225693186
I took the route which passes close to #2.
But none of this allows the line to be diverted to avoid crossing a not-to-be-crossed line feature without compulsory crossing points. Have we missed some relevant rule?3.1.16 If the controls are to be visited in a prescribed order they shall be joined by straight lines. These lines should be broken to avoid obscuring important detail, diverted to meet up with compulsory routes, broken or diverted to indicate compulsory crossing points, and broken or diverted to avoid lakes, ‘out of bounds’, or other areas that cannot be crossed by competitors.
jac wrote:Can anyone provide a plausible interpretation of the planner's decision to bend the line other than "avoid the wall"?
andypat wrote:Is there no way for the organiser to investigate these issues without a formal protest?
graeme wrote:One problem is fairness, but more seriously when mistakes are not taken through the full process, they are bound to get repeated again. This business of "who should take responsibility when an uncrossable wall is marked as crossable" has come up so many times that it is astonishing that the rules aren't clear.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests