Navigate to Finish

[Dewi]

I've been to a few S6D events where the finish control is on the fringes of the map, on a blank section of the "map/paper". It does not pose an issue as when you get to the last control, look up, see the Finish banner and 3000+ people..hmm better run that way then.

So this rule is of limited impact to big events. I ran a CSCUP I think in Cannock chase and the hardest leg was to get from the last control to the finish, it was neigh on impossible with brashings everywhere, and the only guiding light was the commentary so I knew I was getting close. I've also got lost on a night event trying to find the finish.

Are taped routes at night events in scope for this rule, no reason why not, hurrah.

[King Penguin]

I agree it makes sense to have a common direction of approach to the finish, but I do not see why a TD1 course and a TD5 course have to have exactly the same run-in.
Some of the argument seems to be "the finish has no description so the route must be easy / taped". Seems to me we are addressing the wrong issue and the real solution should be to allow the Finish to have a control description.

[Homer]

The finish for next year's JK is: 'Field, middle of'

[NeilC]

I have asked Rules Group to clarify whether they intended this to apply to score events.

[DJM]

Score events were not part of our thinking ...

... but note that Appendix B 5.2 starts "There should be a single, common last control, unless the requirements of the event dictate otherwise."

The requirements of a Score event usually do dictate otherwise!

[DaveK]

Is it not possible to have a 'compulsory' last control on a Score course which is the same as the last control on all other courses, so all have the same run-in?

[NeilC]

Score events were not part of our thinking ...

... but note that Appendix B 5.2 starts "There should be a single, common last control, unless the requirements of the event dictate otherwise."

The requirements of a Score event usually do dictate otherwise!

Two of the stated reasons for having the common last control were that i) the finish has no description and ii) people arriving from multiple directions can obscure the finish. Both of these still apply at score events. Are score events not considered serious enough to warrant the same consideration? The phrase "unless the requirements of the event dictate otherwise" is the sort of vague statement that should be weeded out of the Rules. As it stands a club could invent a requirement to justify not having taped last controls. I feel that this could have been much better dealt with (outside of major events) as an example of good practice rather than mandated.

[pete.owens]

I think there is a need for an exception so long as there is a genuine need and not seen as a free for all exemption. You can still have orderly marked routes coming from more than one final control so long as they are coming from broadly the same direction.

Take this example from this year's event at Holme Fell:
https://www.loc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#267&course=1,10
The junior courses entered the finish field on a marked route through one gate, and the technical courses entered though a different gate with a short run-in.

[Scott]

To give another example, as planner for the Tim Watkins on Caw (mass start, gaffled), I was determined that people should have to navigate all the way to the finish line. So I went for a common last control, a finish circle unambiguously centred on a major track junction that wasn't visible from the last control, and no taping.

It seemed to work as intended - we had several sprint finishes where runners took different micro-routechoices down the hill, and in some cases the decision to take the trickier but shorter line direct to the finish, rather than going out to track and along, appeared to be decisive. Altogether more satisfying than having the race decided by mindless running along a line of tapes.

[pete.owens]

But would that really have been spoiled by adding a final control (with CD) at the path crossing (or even a nearby technical feature) - with a short unmarked sprint to a visible finish further down the track?

[Scott]

I certainly can't see how that would have improved it. (Edit: Bear in mind that it's not really possible to draw a run-in of any less than 75m without the overlapping circles making things difficult to read, and - as WOC KO Sprints have shown us - 75m is more than enough distance for the faster runner who's been out-navigated to come sprinting back past again.)

[pete.owens]

Well a close finish is rather more likely at the end of a KO sprint race than after 2 hours on a Lake District fell. But if you are thinking of the possibility of a full-on sprint at the end of the race then the possibility of two competitors racing for the finish from opposing directions might be taking the "head to head" element of the race a bit too literally!

[King Penguin]

... which is why Scott used a common last control. I see nothing wrong with "navigate to finish" in such circumstances, other than that in just over 2 weeks the rules will not allow it. Even on TD1 why should the Finish have to be visible / taped from the last control if it is along a clear path ?
The revision I would make would be to enable the Finish to have a control description. If the Start has to have one - even when often on a line feature e.g. path for the benefit of TD1 and TD2 why can't the Finish also have one ?

[Gnitworp]

I once 'followed tapes' to the last control on another course

[pete.owens]

... which is why Scott used a common last control.

... with route choices including approaching the finish along paths from oposing directions.