Are British Orienteering Rules too complex?

[maprun]

I really think the rules group should strike this off the rules and leave it to the discretion of the event or competition organiser to decide on shadowing.

Really, do people think going round the paths on a white or yellow course before someones run is going to give any measurable advantage? In my experience taking young children orienteering can be quite exhausting and for fairness perhaps all parents arriving with young children should be given a 5 minute head start if they get the chance for their own run?

The first mention of shadowing (Rule 12.9), states it's up to the organiser to decide whether and how shadowing can take place. Relax, unless you are trying to gain an unfair advantage! I never thought I did when I used to shadow our children.

[SJC]

Really, do people think going round the paths on a white or yellow course before someones run is going to give any measurable advantage?

It certainly does. You will have seen the route out of the start; what the forest looks like in terms of runnability; and the approach to the final control - how visible it is etc.
Whether this is outweighed by the effort and stress of managing children round a course is a different question.

[SeanC]

The first mention of shadowing (Rule 12.9), states it's up to the organiser to decide whether and how shadowing can take place

Well doesn't that mean there is no need to mention adults shadowing before their run in in the rules? It's also up to the organiser to decide what music to play on the PA system and whether to give out free cake, but there are no mention of music or cake in the rules (though it's a big document, I might have missed these ).

Whether this is outweighed by the effort and stress of managing children round a course is a different question

Exactly. Let's give hard pressed parents a break for their benefit and the benefit of the sport. There are other groups that do get clearly bigger advantage which we accept as it's in the best interest of the sport eg.

- planners and mappers of previous events in that area.
- experienced competitors who've been to the area dozens of times and can probably draw the map in their sleep.

[rf_fozzy]

There are other groups that do get clearly bigger advantage which we accept as it's in the best interest of the sport.

The ones that annoy me are the better runners and navigators than me.

[maprun]

Sorry SeanC, my mistake, the first mention of shadowing is 9.13 and 9.14 that say you should have completed your course first before shadowing. For level C and D courses I took the view no one cared and it didn't bother me if I was disqualified.

[NeilC]

Really, do people think going round the paths on a white or yellow course before someones run is going to give any measurable advantage? In my experience taking young children orienteering can be quite exhausting and for fairness perhaps all parents arriving with young children should be given a 5 minute head start if they get the chance for their own run?

As SJC points out there could be some (real or perceived) advantages in shadowing round a white/yellow. Even more shadowing round a light green or a green.

The rules could have been written to cover multiple shadowing scenarios but then there would be even more complaints about their complexicity. You could argue that it's covered by rule 6.2 in any case - perhaps that's what the plan is for the new rules, be less explicit and try and cover more in generic advice (like the infamous 6.1).

[Atomic]

I might myself be being unfair so apologies if so. For those level C events, that sounds a bit like 'if you're in the know, you know you can ignore the rule', which makes things less fair (for a rule which I assume has the aim of making things more fair).

That's not my experience. My experience is people who enter events wanting to podium take the rules seriously, others just go and have some fun. Its no different to someone totally lost standing beside a control that's not theirs and asking the person who arrives at it to point them to relocate them on their map. I've seen that at major events and local events. Those people should really declare themselves NC at the finish but in reality by the time they get that desperate they've wasted a lot of time and nobody really cares.

I'm still amazed by the rule and surprised that parents don't make a fuss, or perhaps they just accept it, ignore it or drop out of the sport?

You've only just realised its a rule and you've been around a long time, and assuming my experience is normal then at anything other than the serious events nobody cares, and where they do they try to accommodate (e.g. an early start so dad can be back to shadow junior) so why would you assume that its a problem that would make someone drop out?

I really think the rules group should strike this off the rules and leave it to the discretion of the event or competition organiser to decide on shadowing.

competition organisers can already decide to change/ignore rules anyway - there's a process to follow which as you would expect is more onerous for level A's than level D's. If your local event details are not routinely making clear the policy on shadowing (or dogs that you also mentioned) then perhaps offer to update the template that gets used so organisers consider it? I'm assuming you have organised events - yet only read the rules this week, I'm sure others will be the same - they have no idea that this is something that should even be highlighted.

Really, do people think going round the paths on a white or yellow course before someones run is going to give any measurable advantage?

do you only see shadowing on white and yellow courses? We often see shadowing (indeed our coaches actively encourage it for adults as well as juniors) at the first few events after someone moves up a TD or if they've run a few events at a particular TD and gone horribly wrong. Its entirely possible that I'd shadow my junior member on either the same course I run, or at least a course that involves many of the same controls.

[Atomic]

- planners and mappers of previous events in that area.

I think for serious competition, mappers are expected to declare themselves NC.

- experienced competitors who've been to the area dozens of times and can probably draw the map in their sleep.

that's why we embargo certain areas for serious competition

[sborrill]

4.7.1 There should always be someone at the finish, to supervise competitors and act as the point of contact in an emergency. The finish is the most likely place for somebody to go to report a problem such as an injured competitor.

the only time I remember a finish being unmanned is when the download tent is visible from the finish control. Is it normal to finish out of sight and hope that newbies would just know to follow a trail of streamers to download?

Streamers? You're lucky to even get those sometimes.

unnamed.png (105.33 KiB) Viewed 6431 times

Download was approximately where the hand-drawn X is, up two flights of stairs with no notices/kites on the ground floor or outside and with reception staff unaware. No tapes from finish, no safety punch and with wooded area adjacent to finish obscuring the view to the bit you might recognise from being the start,

[pete.owens]

"The Mapper is responsible for ensuring that all essential information is shown on the map, this includes all of the following:
.....
• legend – see Appendix D: Mapping for Level A exceptions."

I'll be honest I haven't checked what's actually listed, but do you go to events where maps are deficient? The only issue I see with this is the mapper may have no sight of the final maps that go to printing - e.g placement of CD's, sponsor's logo etc.

Actually it is quite common for maps not to include all the required small print.

I must admit I didn't realise the exemption for the legend only applied to level A events (is this the only example in the rules where the requirements for top level events are less onerous?). Given how much real estate a legible legend occupies it is pretty much inevitable that if there is one it is going to be covered by the CDs.

[Atomic]

Interestingly I've now bothered to go and check. Whilst the rule says full legend not needed at level A, and so by implication suggests there is another rule which says there should be a full legend at other levels, I can only see mention of "a legend" I can't see anywhere that specifies what should be in it. e.g. a "full" legend would sound like it should have the full ISOM or ISSOM symbol set - but there are some symbols I've never seen in the UK and it seems pointless including any symbol that is not actually on the map. I don't really see why TD5 runners need the symbols like a contour line explained either - its probably more helpful to have a well laid out map with the CDs not cramping the course.

Could this be a hangover from some previous time when a full legend was required?
IMHO - much more important that people understand if its mapped to ISOM or ISSOM standard and the subtle differences for paths/tracks, and that on beginners courses (which for adults could be TD3) that we have text based control descriptions rather than just hieroglyphics.

Actually it is quite common for maps not to include all the required small print.

I've been thinking about this - we don't really do training for Organisers or Planners very well. For Organisers we make them go on a short course but its 99% about safety/risk assessment. For planners we chuck them some documents and perhaps assign them a mentor to look over their courses - usually focussed on technical difficulty, perhaps on cutting lines/circles how to get condes to play nicely. And then we let them loose on a level D event. Inevitably they will copy what others do at local level D's. Assumption being that its "only a level D" so if there bits not right that's forgivable. In fact, as it may have more beginners than other levels - perhaps its even more important to get it right? Perhaps we should be insisting on some sort of controller at level D - even if that is an armchair role rather than physically checking sites (although there's plenty of dodgy control placement on level D's!).

Anyone who thinks O has too many rules should go look at British Cycling's event/commissaries rule book.

[SeanC]

Atomic - I think you identify a really important problem, and a tempting, but I think wrong solution.

Controllers (it seems to me) are mostly about applying rules (ok also providing guidance). It's tempting to think that if we had 'controlling light' for level D then what a rules group might agree are generally bad things for level D events (such as pasting over the map key) would be gone.

This might be true. But for a level D course aimed at newbies, a perfect map and course is pointless if there are no newbies because there's been no publicity. And of course for some level D events map keys don't matter matter, such as our Kent Night Cup events. I think that Kent Night Cup would never have happened if there had been the burden of even lightweight controlling.

And finally NeilC (SEOA controllers controller) would say there aren't enough controllers already, and say 'Sean would you like to be a controller' .

So, although it sounds a bit wooly, I would focus on the aims, eg "get more people to take up orienteering at level D events" rather than the rules and help clubs achieve this aim somehow.

I think that instead of controlling should instead be support (I realise that's part of a controllers job). To come back to the example maybe support could be offering an appropriate solution (eg giving out free map keys, emailing map keys for preentry, printing a map key at the back of the map). Or maybe it turns out that it's not a big problem, or not the most urgent problem. In which case it's not a rule we're stuck with enforcing forever taking up time, even though time would be better spent with more effective ways of reaching the aim.

Unfortunately BO over recent years have focused development efforts on 'activity' type initiatives that are great for getting government development grants (and good for participants), but mostly offer 'signposting' to events rather than directly generate many new club members. It's clear from multiple examples (TVOC, MADO, SYO etc) that well run and publicised local events are the easiest way to get newbies into mainstream orienteering.

BO have limited resources, but BO could probably help with monitoring... using data to see which clubs are successfully recruiting and which events are pulling in the punters, and publishing the results. Then somehow the good practice/ideas etc need to be spread. Instead of 'local controllers' a way of identifing aims and sharing ideas could work IMHO, which doesn't necessarily have to be top down knowledge spread through development officers.. it could just be more frequent (or even some) regional development meetings for example.

[blindasabat]

Unfortunately BO over recent years have focused development efforts on 'activity' type initiatives that are great for getting government development grants (and good for participants), but mostly offer 'signposting' to events rather than directly generate many new club members. It's clear from multiple examples (TVOC, MADO, SYO etc) that well run and publicised local events are the easiest way to get newbies into mainstream orienteering.

These initiatives may generate new participants, but do they generate new planners and organisers? From what I have seen the answer is 'limited' at best. And why don't these 'newbies' become officials? Anecdotally, they are put off by the complexity of the task and the propensity of some established orienteers to wave the voluminous rulebook in their faces for even minor infractions. It seems to me that to survive, the sport needs to lighten up and lose its elite and competition focus.

[buzz]

It seems to me that to survive, the sport needs to lighten up and lose its elite and competition focus.

Orienteering is a competitive sport. All competitive sports have rules and dare I say it 'competitions'. If you want to do something that doesn't have rules don't do a competitive sport!

And the idea that 'elite' competition is somehow damaging to a sport is equally bizarre! Football is as popular as ever with little kids kicking a ball about on the street wearing the shirts of the heroes they see on TV, and everything in-between.

And if you want to see a successful mix of elite and recreational sport in orienteering just pop over to the country's fastest growing club in Sheffield where 1000s of kids get a taste of orienteering through school, hundreds come regularly to Saturday Series events, 70 plus come each week to club nights, and 10 just got selected for the England team at Junior Home Internationals.

Sure we have 'kick about' style exercises with limited rules at club nights, but elite competition at all age groups is a big part of the club.

[NeilC]

The rules were always written to be tight at the top (championships) and loose at the bottom (local events). As we have seen from this thread that's not immediately obvious if you just go in and pick out individual bits - it is allowed to cover up legends at local events, and this is written in the rules if you know where to look. Rules have to have some degree of complexity and it has been the role of the controller to check that the Level A/B/C events adhere to them. For Level D events clubs are trusted not to do anything too extreme.

The set of rules is messy in places and part of the reason for that is that different committees/groups used to "own" particular sections. Thus the Junior Competitions Group would write all the rules pertaining to juniors and their competitions, Map Group the bits about maps etc. Rules Group itself largely consisted of experienced controllers who regularly had to deal with complaints and protests and so were keen to make the rules comprehensive.

Hopefully the new group will comprise people with a wide range of interests within the sport who can work together to produce something that is accessible to more people by some means.