Emit back-up cards

[mharky]

Back in the day you wouldn't let someone start an orienteering event if you saw they had pin-punches on their paper control card. So why are we allowed to start races without having our emit back-up card checked?

The back-up card I used at the Southern champs was from WOC, and I think think I'd also used it a couple of times in Scotland since WOC. A large majority of the buck-up pins had been punched onto it. I could have easily missed a control, yet had the back-up punch from a previous race, and the organiser would have to reinstate me.

I don't recall ever having my back-up card checked in the UK. This should be done at major races using emit, as a more cunning person could simply take a pin before hand, prick every single hole, and then claim they punched too fast yet have the back-up punch to prove it.

[andypat]

To misquote Mharky

emit

why

?

[rocky]

Even if it was checked you could have another pre-punched one in your pocket so the check is worth nothing.

I've seen races where you get a one off backup card for the day printed with your name and start time which gets round this but adds a significant hassle for organisers.

It could be that the backup checking software can show the pattern of pin marks generated by your course - the presence of a large number of extra punches would highlight a previously used card.

[NeilC]

as a more cunning person could simply take a pin before hand, prick every single hole, and then claim they punched too fast yet have the back-up punch to prove it.

Would there not need to be evidence of the forest unit malfunctioning before a back-up punch is accepted in lieu of an electronic one? After all the back-up punch does not indicate when the control was visited. A deceitful competitor could miss out a control and then pick it up later, at a more convenient point on the course, and just present the card to the unit to get the back-up punch.

[graeme]

How to win with just a pin.

[Big Jon]

Couldn't someone with the appropriate IT skills have an SI unit and programme it with different numbers and punch it multiple times, therefore removing the need to visit some/all controls on a course?
There are always ways to cheat in any sport - particularly orienteering - but the instances are rare and usually by individuals who are unlikely to be challenging for major honours.

[Paul Frost]

A deceitful competitor could miss out a control and then pick it up later, at a more convenient point on the course, and just present the card to the unit to get the back-up punch.

If you were that way inclined you could do the same with SPORTident, just punch your map and say that the unit didn't respond.

So should there be a rule that says manual punches are only accepted if there is proof of a unit failure by multiple competitors?

I suspect the number of people prepared to cheat in an orienteering competition is very small, so should we spend time and effort trying to plug every tiny hole?

[graeme]

I'm not aware of anyone in the UK ever successfully reinstated with the correct time thanks to the EMIT "backup" card.

I didn't get corrected then. Is it still the case? As far as I know, on the rare occasions of unit failure everyone gets reinstated, and on the (much more common) occasions of brikke failure you're out.

[DJM]

I didn't get corrected then. Is it still the case? As far as I know, on the rare occasions of unit failure everyone gets reinstated, and on the (much more common) occasions of brikke failure you're out.

Standing in the download tent during Sunday's Southern Champs, I saw a finisher whose brikke had "died" but whose backup card seemed OK. I believe he was reinstated with a time which, I guess, came from the secondary timing system being used.

In other circumstances, a failed brikke means that no race time can be assigned to the finisher, so they have to be "out".

[NeilC]

Standing in the download tent during Sunday's Southern Champs, I saw a finisher whose brikke had "died" but whose backup card seemed OK. I believe he was reinstated with a time which, I guess, came from the secondary timing system being used.

Another rule bites the dust
"8.9.4 If a competitor loses, or breaks, their e-card during a race then they are unlikely
to be able to demonstrate that they have completed the course correctly and
should be disqualified. Even if the competitor has used pin punches to complete
the course they will be unable to demonstrate that these controls were taken in
the correct order. "

[Paul Frost]

Another rule bites the dust
"8.9.4 If a competitor loses, or breaks, their e-card during a race then they are unlikely
to be able to demonstrate that they have completed the course correctly and
should be disqualified. Even if the competitor has used pin punches to complete
the course they will be unable to demonstrate that these controls were taken in
the correct order. "

But that doesn't appear to cover a working e-card arriving at download but with punches on map or card to prove they visited controls missing from their e-card.
So if the course had a loop or such that they could visit a control later, they could skip it the first time, have a rest to recover and plan future legs, then manually punch later. But this requires lots of variables to be in place and a cheating athlete. So do we really need rules to cover this scenario?

[NeilC]

But that doesn't appear to cover a working e-card arriving at download but with punches on map or card to prove they visited controls missing from their e-card.

Covered:

8.9.3 Missing punches have proved to be the most controversial problem to address. In
some cases it is possible for a competitor to visit a control and believe they have
punched, but for there to be no record in the e-card. This may simply be a
mistake (such as forgetting to punch at a road crossing or the last control) but
more often the competitor believes they have punched correctly. The normal
explanation is that they have not punched correctly, e.g. having punched too quickly for SportIdent, or not fully inserted the e-card for Emit. In these cases the
competitor must be disqualified, even if there is evidence (from spectators or
electronically in the control box) that the competitor was at the control.

In the context of the rules punch refers to an electronic record on the card or brikke, not a back-up pin punch. Back-up pin punches should only be accepted when there is evidence that the control unit was not functioning properly.

However I'm guessing that an EMIT brikke with a dying battery may well not always register an electronic punch at a fully functional control unit (but will receive a pin punch if fully inserted). Tough to DSQ someone under those circumstances, perhaps this is why EMIT are happy to accept either an electronic or a pin punch.

[roadrunner]

It would seem very unfair to disqualify someone using a hired card if it died during the event, since that can't in any way be the competitor's fault. Even with your own Emit card, is there any way of knowing whether it's about to die?

[Paul Frost]

I've heard that if you put your card in the fridge and it's still working it suggests that it will probably last a bit longer in normal temperatures. No evidence of it myself but I can understand the logic, as batteries generally don't like the cold, so a weak battery is more temperature sensitive.

[Nimby]

It would seem very unfair to disqualify someone using a hired card if it died during the event, since that can't in any way be the competitor's fault. Even with your own Emit card, is there any way of knowing whether it's about to die?

If it's a V3 card and the LCD goes faint while it's on the Start control, the battery is near end-of-life. Maybe all cards can report low battery problems when downloaded - does anyone know?

EMIT-UK can replace a V3 card's battery for £30 and sell refurbished V3s for £45. I don't think you can buy new EMIT cards with a display any more ...