2023 Rule Changes

[awk]

The rule about non-disclosure of start times makes sense for 'serious' competitions/competitors, but for 98% of us surely over the top. Perhaps that needs drafting to be "selection competitions"? Displaying start times before entries close is good in many ways, it helps sociability (by enabling club members to start at roughly the same time) and makes car sharing a bit more likely. I would also avoid starting just before or after an equally matched competitor as it's distracting.

Totally agree: we as a club have certainly used that facility. And like you, I use the start times to avoid other competitors of similar or better standard, rather than the other way round! Not publishing start times would, IMO, more likely lead to the opposite effect than intended - with bunching and towing more likely created.

Does anybody actually start just in front of a better runner and hope for a tow? Have to admit it, in the non-elite racing I take part in, I haven't encountered it. (Wait to be told wrong now!).

[SJC]

Does anybody actually start just in front of a better runner and hope for a tow?

No, you start one minute behind as it puts pressure on the person starting first and the slightest mistake by them and you have caught them up.

[awk]

No, you start one minute behind as it puts pressure on the person starting first and the slightest mistake by them and you have caught them up.

Maybe I'm being naive, but just don't see that actually happening at the events I go to. As I said, I think it's more likely (at non-major races) to happen if people can't see start times beforehand.

[Atomic]

Picking specific start times has advantages beyond Covid:

- lets you be far more granular than early/mid/late
- lets people travelling by public transport be very clear about a start time rather than hoping that the organiser's version of "middle" is the same as theirs
- lets families pick their own start time so that either they all finish in a good order (not waiting too long for later finishers) or they start in a way that lets parents get children off without needing special arrangements / punching starts for parents (which potentially negates any benefit this rule change might bring anyway!)
- lets you plan ad hoc lift sharing further in advance than the typical start times announced 2 days before stuff. We should be encouraging this not making it simpler for people to just take their own car too.

I'm a bit sceptical that "towing" is a real issue, esp at level C events. If it is an issue, better thought about the gap between runners on the same course and start box layouts / planning for leg 1 which mean runners are out of sight and scattered would have a bigger impact. Not publishing the start times won't prevent accidental towing only premeditated towing, and as Pete Owens says will be pointless if start times are treated as suggestions only. Why that happens? I think is a mix of organisers/start officials trying to be nice and competitors doing whatever they want. I think part of that is people picking say "early" start and then getting a start that's actually right at the end of that window and hoping to sneak in earlier on the day. I suspect some people have no idea what running a big start actually involves and so don't mean to cause the level of disruption they do by turning up 30 minutes early and asking to sneak in.

What I do think the rule change creates is a conflict between what is in the interests of the sport being easily accessible, flexible, maximising entries yet simple for event organisers whilst at the same time protecting the competitive interest. I understand why the systems tend to user early/late/mid descriptors but imagine its your first ever event on Fabian4 and getting that question, you may not even have the start window times readily available. I regularly hear grumbles about organisers only sharing final details (and start times) very close to events. Its in everyone's interest to keep entries open as long as possible but that only adds to the temptation to publish late to comply with this rule. Meanwhile, it loads more on the organiser very close to the event.

So my suggestion would be: its better to let people indicate a preferred start actual time (which may be adjusted to fit everyone in), and tell that to the competitor but delay publishing the times if necessary until either entries close of 72 hours before the event AND make start box arrangements that actually work to break up people of the same course.

[Atomic]

No, you start one minute behind as it puts pressure on the person starting first and the slightest mistake by them and you have caught them up.

A well-laid-out start box sorts that problem - you've no idea where the person in front went by the time you get to the start kite - if you can't do it with 1 min starts, make the gap on the same course longer. Even without that: you can still only benefit from the "tow" if (1) you are quick enough to keep them in sight from start to whenever they make a mistake; (2) you are good enough navigator to know they've made a mistake and confident enough to take your own decision; (3) you are good enough navigator to maintain the advantage you gained. If 1,2 and 3 all apply it will be quite a coincidence if the runner you are following is also perfectly matched for speed so they never get away from you and you are not having to slow down to benefit from their tow.

[SeanC]

Looking at the rules more closely I think I can fix this/offer a loophole.

The rules say

27.10 In an interval start for events above Level D that are not covered by Appendix A clause 3.1.1, the competitor may select from a start band. For example: Early/Middle/Late, or a start block of at least 15- minutes.
27.11 The start times of competitors shall not be disclosed to other competitors until entries and entry changes have closed.

'Events covered by clause 3.1.1 are a few big ones: British Long-distance Championships, British Middle-distance Championships, British Sprint Championships, British Night Championships, JK Sprint Championships, JK Individual Championships, Area Championships.

So if all events other than these, use 15 minute start blocks instead of specific start times, and displayed the competitors start block as now. That should be fine, as it's a start block not a start time....

Is blatant following not against the rules of orienteering BTW?

[pete.owens]

Before covid level C events normally didn't allocate start times at all. Just turn up to the start and queue. This takes pressure off the start officials - no calling out names, ticking off paper lists in the rain, dealing with late and early comptitirs and so on. It also makes it easier for competitors - no worry about traffic delays, toilet queues, chatting with someone in assembly or worrying about how long it is going to take to walk to the start. Occasionally you might have to queue if you were on a particularly popular course, but it was extremely rare for the queue to be longer than the time you would arrive early to make sure you were in time for an allocated start time.

So unless there is a specific reason for allocating start times (eg a selection race, CSC heat, or a very loaded start list), we should revert to not allocating start times. But, for the few events where start times are needed do it properly.

[roadrunner]

I think part of that is people picking say "early" start and then getting a start that's actually right at the end of that window and hoping to sneak in earlier on the day. I suspect some people have no idea what running a big start actually involves and so don't mean to cause the level of disruption they do by turning up 30 minutes early and asking to sneak in.

Apart from the JK and the like, my experience of recent events (all urban) has been that there's seldom any significant queue at the start. Personally, I tend to allow a bit of leeway for travel disruption, so if everything goes smoothly and there isn't a queue, I'll ask if I can start early. I've never been refused, but would be quite happy to wait until the time or block I'd specified if asked.

[SJC]

Is blatant following not against the rules of orienteering BTW?

The rules say that competitors must not try to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors, but doesn't specifically include following. What can't be legislated against is the benefit of two competitors running together, with both navigating, once one has been caught by the other.

[Gnitworp]

What can't be legislated against is the benefit of two competitors running together, with both navigating, once one has been caught by the other.

No, but you can mitigate it with lots of route choice, macro and micro.

[frostbite]

Is blatant following not against the rules of orienteering BTW?

The rules say that competitors must not try to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors, but doesn't specifically include following.

Rule 9.13 Competitors must not intentionally run with or behind other competitors in order to profit from their skill.

doing it accidentally is fine.

[roadrunner]

I just looked at the changes for the British Sprints. What seems odd to me is that the rule suggests that B finals are required for all men's classes from M40 to M75 except for M70, whereas for women it's all classes from W40 to W70. I appreciate these are just suggestions and the actual classes provided would depend on the entries received, but it seems a bit odd to me. Did the M70 entries this year fall just below the threshold of 20? (The text also talks of possible B finals highlighted in yellow for slightly smaller classes, but I can't see anything highlighted in yellow.)

[SJC]

B finals are required for all men's classes from M40 to M75 except for M70, whereas for women it's all classes from W40 to W70

Probably just a typo.

[Slowtochide]

My interpretation of the draft changes is that level B events no longer have to have set start times, but I could definitely be wrong on that…
In the meantime it is worth noting that the ability to pick blocks or start times when entering (and I exclude Champs etc here) results in a huge reduction in work by the entries team for any event. Something definitely to be applauded

[pete.owens]

"Pre-allocated punching start times"
Are still listed as a requirement. (p21)