BOF needs to get tough on cheating. Urban orienteering is an inherently dangerous sport and the last thing we need, and the last thing BOF needs, is runners playing fast and loose with the precautions that have been put in place to keep the danger within reasonable limits. Not to mention that the existence of these events relies on the goodwill of many bodies in the local area, and that goodwill quickly evaporates when runners cause a nuisance to the locals by trespassing, running in traffic, having accidents, etc.
In order to concentrate the mind, BOF should suspend the membership of anyone caught going OOB, whether it was on purpose or not. And serious or repeated breaches should result in a ban from participating in BOF-registered events.
London
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
54 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: London
I have recently submitted a proposal to change the BOF Rule to be in line with the IOF one again.
Agree that an indication of optimal (or shortest legal route) is helpful to competitors, and should be encouraged where possible. Many urban events give at least an indication of this at some stage, even if it is just that actual lengths are likely to be around x% longer than indicated.
But not sure that it should be a rule. In my experience many urban events have very late enforced course changes, sometimes quite major, because of things like road/building works starting; loss of or failure to confirm permissions for an area; finding out that a route choice is actually private; a conflicting activity on part of the area; etc etc. (And "very late" means typically the Monday or Tuesday prior to the event). Requiring the planner to recalculate and measure optimum routes for each course at that stage is impractical, and risks missing print deadlines. I would far rather they concentrate on getting the important things right, like descriptions for any changed control sites, correcting hanging schedules etc.
Making it a rule may work for something like BOC/JK sprints, which are on compact (and traffic free) areas less susceptible to unexpected occurrences, but for urban events it may cause more problems than it solves.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: London
I think "one strike and you are out" is a little harsh, anyone can make a mistake, but I agree there should be some stronger penalty for deliberate flouting of the rules. The problem is, how do you prove "deliberate" ?
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - guru
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: London
King Penguin wrote:I think "one strike and you are out" is a little harsh, anyone can make a mistake, but I agree there should be some stronger penalty for deliberate flouting of the rules. The problem is, how do you prove "deliberate" ?
I agree - there have been times when I've inadvertently gone out of bounds because I didn't know where I was on the map; I gained no advantage from it (and backtracked the way I'd come once I realised). But there can't be a valid excuse for crossing a road that's clearly marked as OOB along almost its entire length (you could cross legally just E of the start but that's not a sensible route choice). If there are two reasonable and legal route choices (which I think there were on Course 7, the one I ran), is it allowed to have two controls with the same code, one in each underpass, either one to be punched?
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: London
Snail wrote: many urban events have very late enforced course changes, sometimes quite major,
if that happens then folk would understand - course lengths are usually "subject to final controlling" anyway - and late changes would probably only affect a couple of legs per course, so measuring the difference ought to be straightforward
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: London
roadrunner wrote:If there are two reasonable and legal route choices (which I think there were on Course 7, the one I ran), is it allowed to have two controls with the same code, one in each underpass, either one to be punched?
That's what we came up with in discussion too. This would have allowed the route choice element to be retained - which was a nicely balanced one. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but also good for learning!
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3263
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: London
BOF needs to get tough on cheating.
But "BOF" can't do anything unless it (a) knows who is cheating and (b) can prove it. Neither of these can come about unless the organisers have the right policies in place. I suggest these include
* designing courses to minimise the chances of competitors going OOB, and some suggestions made above will aid this
* having marshals at potential "hot spots" whose prime aim is a deterrent one, i.e. to "advise" anyone about to go OOB of the error of their ways
* where such deterrence fails to work, the marshal needs to get definitive proof of the cheating. As a minimum this would be to record the bib number (bibs front and back are needed for this). Better still to photograph/video the transgression
* marshals need to be in radio/phone contact with the organiser to relay advice to disqualify before it is too late, e.g. before any prizegiving, publication of start lists for Finals etc.
Of course, these policies are only viable for our biggest Sprint/Urban races but, if put into place would, I suspect, have a major effect in preventing cheating. It's amazing what effect the presence of a marshal has on competitor behaviour ...
NB Anyone who attended the recent Major Events Conference will recognise all the above points as being part of the presentation on "Sprints - the Controller's View".
- DJM
- addict
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: London
I know of a least one person who tried to self disqualify but was told that so many people had made that error(going into 232 from the south when we had been told at Pre Start we had to go in from the north) that there was no point!! 

- Tatty
- guru
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:21 pm
Re: London
In the first Edinburgh race my memory says that 20 - 25% of competitors on men's open were disqualified for crossing a clearly marked oob road, and they basis of the DQ was that their split times produced an impossible time.
There was some grumbling, but I believe it brought home to all the people concerned that OOB means OOB period.
I believe that the reason that people are so cavalier about these rules is the laissez faire attitude of most organisers to infringements. All known infringements, regardless if others do the same unspotted or not should result in dq and then the culture will develop that makes the whole argument irrelevant as the only defaulters would be beginners that don't know, people who are lost and genuinely unaware, and a very few people that simply don't care.
Rules are generally obeyed or not as a culture rather than for their own sake. Note that uncrossable features are not an issue with the World's elite who understand and take the rules for granted, however the rules about talking and working together are totally and [b]openly[/b] ignored by them.
There was some grumbling, but I believe it brought home to all the people concerned that OOB means OOB period.
I believe that the reason that people are so cavalier about these rules is the laissez faire attitude of most organisers to infringements. All known infringements, regardless if others do the same unspotted or not should result in dq and then the culture will develop that makes the whole argument irrelevant as the only defaulters would be beginners that don't know, people who are lost and genuinely unaware, and a very few people that simply don't care.
Rules are generally obeyed or not as a culture rather than for their own sake. Note that uncrossable features are not an issue with the World's elite who understand and take the rules for granted, however the rules about talking and working together are totally and [b]openly[/b] ignored by them.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: London
EddieH wrote:In the first Edinburgh race my memory says that 20 - 25% of competitors on men's open were disqualified for crossing a clearly marked oob road, and they basis of the DQ was that their split times produced an impossible time.
I think the rule was that if you beat Rocky you got DQ'd

Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: London
I came across a photo showing the assembly area some years ago:
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/EPW007736
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/EPW007736
- afterthought
- green
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:40 pm
London city race Headcam video
Headcam video from London City race 2015
https://youtu.be/0Y6XEgL_dg8
Features the Tower Of London, and use of the subways!
On that note, It has been noted at least twice before that video footage cannot be used to show someone has visited a control, or even punched at the Finish! so dont see how it can be used to disqualify people for Out of Bounds transgressions.
https://youtu.be/0Y6XEgL_dg8
Features the Tower Of London, and use of the subways!
On that note, It has been noted at least twice before that video footage cannot be used to show someone has visited a control, or even punched at the Finish! so dont see how it can be used to disqualify people for Out of Bounds transgressions.
- nooomember
- light green
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 am
Re: London
roadrunner wrote:If there are two reasonable and legal route choices (which I think there were on Course 7, the one I ran), is it allowed to have two controls with the same code, one in each underpass, either one to be punched?
I believe the 2009 Mountain Trial did something along these lines, where you had to punch any one of three controls depending on which public right of way you used to cross the Duddon Valley.
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: London
EddieH wrote: 25% of competitors on men's open were disqualified for crossing a clearly marked oob road,
Yes, they were DQ'ed, but they weren't regarded as cheats. It was in the early days of urban racing, I'm sure it was an honest mistake in all cases, not spotting the OOB on a road with many pedestrians crossing. Even one of the n/c prerunners did it! We learned from that to make the OOB overprint much clearer.
In London, by contrast, anyone who made the "obvious error" on the leg (drift left) would be faced with the choice of doubling back or illegally crossing the road. I suspect that most people knew they were going OOB, but it was a spur of the moment thing rather than a planned illegal route.
Coming soon
Boston City Race (May, maybe not)
Coasts and Islands (Shetland)
SprintScotland https://sprintscotland.weebly.com/
Boston City Race (May, maybe not)
Coasts and Islands (Shetland)
SprintScotland https://sprintscotland.weebly.com/
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4748
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: London city race Headcam video
nooomember wrote:Features the Tower Of London, and use of the subways!
I had a look at the Tower section to see just how crowded that route-choice was, and spotted that the video also features non-use of the subways! (not by nooomember). Hence, presumably, the comment about video footage being inadmissible evidence.
Duplicate controls, while a nice idea, might make Routegadget difficult. That's not a reason not to use them though for cases like this, or this.
-
Roger - diehard
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:49 pm
- Location: Oxon
54 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests