Navigate to start kite

[pete.owens]

If there is a taped route indicated on the map then it is compulsory to follow it - whether that is to the start, to the finish or somewhere mid-way on the course.

Having looked through the rules, I can't find any rule that states this. The closest I get is 7.7 "Competitors must follow any compulsory routes for the whole way

Well that seems pretty unambiguous.

[SJC]

Just get the planning right and all these problems go away.
Why create a problem when one doesn't need to exist.

[pete.owens]

The route to the start kite was marked on the ground with stakes and tape (I put them out!) so competitors should have followed them, but with hindsight the map did not have the "Timed Start" symbol added to the map from the start unit to the start kite.

But presumably competitors were instructed by the start officials to follow the marked route to the start, so they have no excuse for not being aware of it - unlike a taped route somewhere else on the course, which might not be part of their course. After all, if there is a marked route to the start, you will already be following it when you have picked up your map and are trying to find the triangle on it.

It is interesting to look at the splits and routegadget for the lead runners on M55L. The 3rd placed runner (who went to the start) lost more time on the first split to the winner (who didn't) than they were behind at the finish. What would the jury have decided if he had submitted a protest.

[Homer]

And if there was a marked route then following it would be mandatory.

But totally unenforceable....

...unless you put an SI box on the start kite and effectively make it the first control. Sound a bit like the navigate to finish discussion?

As SJC says, just get the start set-up right and avoid the issue. If you're trying to avoid people seeing which way competitors set off then have a longer space between the pre-start and the start line.

[Homer]

What would the jury have decided if he had submitted a protest.

I think they'd have no choice but to void the course (and probably all the other courses) as they would have no idea who went to the start triangle and who didn't.
That would be such a shame for an otherwise great race.

[King Penguin]

I think the start triangle was on "path end", presumably because TD1 & TD2 took the path.
I asked at the start if I had to follow the tapes to the kite and the response was "not sure", so I did to play safe / fair. I saw quite a few who did not, but the requirement was far from clear.

[pete.owens]

And if there was a marked route then following it would be mandatory.

But totally unenforceable....

Probably more easy to enforce than most cases of competitors going where they shouldn't out on the course somewhere. All it would take is a marshal noting down race numbers. I have seen marshals deployed to do just that to prevent illegal road crossings for example.
I believe one competitor managed to get themselves disqualified on both days at a weekend event once.

[pete.owens]

What would the jury have decided if he had submitted a protest.

I think they'd have no choice but to void the course (and probably all the other courses) as they would have no idea who went to the start triangle and who didn't.
That would be such a shame for an otherwise great race.

Tis not a level A event so there would be other options.

One possibility would be to invite people who had taken the short cut to declare themselves non comp.

Another would be to time the course from control 1. I think that would be less contentious than removing legs due to a misplaced control since noone will have been disadvantaged by unnecessary searching or effectively retired by jogging the rest of the course assuming their time loss rendered them out of contention.

[IanD]

I think the start triangle was on "path end", presumably because TD1 & TD2 took the path.

Best solution here would be to have two start kites - not two separate start layouts, but just have a left and right side to the -1 taped box, and then separate groups of map boxes; tapes from the TD1/2 group heading for the path end, and tapes from the rest heading to another start kite.

[SJC]

Best solution here would be to have two start kites - not two separate start layouts, but just have a left and right side to the -1 taped box, and then separate groups of map boxes; tapes from the TD1/2 group heading for the path end, and tapes from the rest heading to another start kite.

Once again, why complicate things ?
Use the same start kite for all the courses.
If the sole purpose of the second start kite is to get people away from the path end because it makes the route to the first control easier then either people won't go to the start kite, or they may go there and come back again.
Neither result seems to suggest good course planning.

[Homer]

I noticed at WMOC that the marked route to the start kite was a taped funnel with continuous tapes at waist height all the way from the start line to the start kite. Much clearer that they were compulsory. I believe there were some disqualifications in the Sprint race where competitors didn't fully comply. This does require manpower though (and number bibs front and back to identify people).

Much better to set up the start such that there is no advantage to be gained by not visiting the start kite. How close to a line of isolated tapes on canes do you have to be to be considered to have followed the taped route?

[pete.owens]

What is needed is education so orienteers understand the rules.

I doubt those who took a short cut to the first control were intentionally cheating - It would be rather blatant to set off away from a compulsory route in full view of your competitors if it was generally understood that marked routes were compulsory. They would probably be careful not to upload their routes onto routgadget.

[yted]

Quite.... it would help if people who know told everyone else about this and other rules whenever possible (rather than working hard to find some reason the rule might not apply!). Compulsory routes and uncrossable boundaries are often used for fairness, safety or permissions reasons. If people learn the rules, almost all folk would obey because that is what people generally do. If people disobey out of ignorance and then find out, they can dq themselves or at the very least avoid making the same mistake again. In championship races (and any race where there are saftey issues), the courses should be planned if to avoid rule-breaking being an advantage if at all possible. If not possible, marshals are needed.

[SJC]

In championship races (and any race where there are saftey issues), the courses should be planned if to avoid rule-breaking being an advantage if at all possible.

Why only championship races ?
Courses should always be planned to avoid rule-breaking being an advantage, and it isn't just for safety reasons. Losing an area because someone breaks the rules and deliberatley trespasses into an out of bounds is as much the planners fault as the competitors.

[pete.owens]

The responsibility for rule breaking is entirely with the rule breakers.

Yes it is a good idea for planners to avoid incentives to cheat out on the courses because most of the time we out alone in the forest with no-one to witness any rule breaking so would probably get away with it. However, in this case the taped route was on an open fell in full view of multiple witnesses. I can't imagine it would have happened if more orienteers understood the rules. Anyone asking the start official about the tapes would be told - "Yes you MUST follow them" (not that anyone other than a complete novice would need to ask). When people in the start saw people heading off up the hill they would have called it out, rather than wondering if it was perhaps OK and follow their example.

Indeed we would not be having this debate - anymore than an athletics forum would be debating whether it was acceptable to run straight across the field rather than round the bend of the track - or criticising track designers for including 180 degree bends.