manned finishes

[Paulo]

What if the finish unit fails? I know SI units don't fail very often, but it does happen, and it would be useful to have someone at the finish to record people's times/alert other officials as soon as the problem becomes noticed. Otherwise with a remote finish 1km walk from assembley there could be a hell of a lot of people who don't get a finish time before it's sorted out.

Also I know someone who lost their SI Card very near the end of the course, punched their map for the last few controls. SI Card was later found, but there had been no-one at the finish to confirm his finish time.

But I don't think the spectator point is much of an issue at small local events. Will newcomers to the sport really feel it is a much improved and exciting atmosphere if there is one lone helper standing at the finish, rather than an unmanned finish? I doubt it. But I do think finishes should be manned, for the reasons above as much as anything.

[NeilC]

What if the finish unit fails? I know SI units don't fail very often, but it does happen

Also I know someone who lost their SI Card very near the end of the course, punched their map for the last few controls. SI Card was later found, but there had been no-one at the finish to confirm his finish time.

It is prudent to always have a backup finish unit. We leave a loose unit at the base of the finish unit stake. If both finish units fail then chances are something else has gone wrong or if not just stop the race at the last control.

Regarding lost SI Card the rules are quite clear - the competitor is disqualified! Same principle as not punching at a spectator control. Backup systems should be for equipment not competitor malfunctions.

[Guest]

If the finish is to be unmanned, we ought to say "... report to download, even if you retire", rather than "... report to finish...".

On a course with a map exchange the finish is marked on the first-part map at least partly so you can retire / get help if needed. If the finish is to be unmanned it would make more sense to mark the assembly area / car park. (And what if this isn't on the map....?)

[David May]

This is such a potentially life-saving issue that we cannot afford to get it wrong ...

Looking at the debate so far it is clear that some argue that the Finish shall be manned and some the opposite, some are up-to-date with BOF Rules and Guidelines and others are not - just like the general orienteering public in fact.

However, whatever we do, we must be consistent about it.

Consider the competitor in a genuine emergency situation who needs to get help as quickly as possible. Suppose the Finish is 1 km away and Assembly is 2 km away, and in different directions too. What does he do, where does he go, especially if he has no information about whether or not the Finish is manned? Furthermore, Assembly may not be marked on the map so he doesn't know how to get there. You can see the problems ...

BOF Rules Group had a very sensible debate on this issue, all the arguments expressed in previous mails being raised, and came down very firmly indeed on the side of the Finish having to be manned. The overriding argument was one of safety, the main points being

The Finish will more often than not be nearer than Assembly to a competitor needing help
The Finish is guaranteed to be marked on the map and is thus "findable"

Other benefits have been mentioned in mails above and include

newcomers and others may appreciate being welcomed into the finish and be told what to do next
problems with Finish units can be resolved immediately
etc etc

However, it's obviously no good if our hypothetical orienteer-in-an-emergency doesn't know if the Finish is manned or not. We remove that doubt if it is standard practice that all are manned - hence the BOF Safety Guideline.

One final point - I'm not sure any risk assessment which says that a remote Finish needn't be manned will be worth the paper it's printed on when the BOF safety Guideline clearly says the Finish is to be manned ...

David, wearing his Rules Group hat

[Simon]

If the finish is to be unmanned, we ought to say "... report to download, even if you retire", rather than "... report to finish...".

That is what we should be saying anyway. Download is the where knowing that someone is retiring, no matter whether the finish is remote or not, is a useful bit of information.

[awk]

I'm in the "finishes should be manned" camp - and think the rule on this is eminently sensible. However, on the technical detail of the position of the finish, if it's the event I'm thinking is being referred to, it was not "right next" to a dual carriageway - it was between 150-200m along a major path from the dual carriageway, and about a 100m away direct line across a significant stream valley, although route to and from assembly area crossed said road via pedestrian lights.

Yes, it was a schools event, but I wouldn't expect to leave supervision of any children of mine to a finish team unless specifically agreed with organisers and parents.

[HOCOLITE]

AWK.
Your comments re leaving supervision of children to finish team, reminded me of a situation many moons ago, when a teacher had a group of children at an event and one went missing. Said teacher was in a dilemma, the club were organising search party but what did he do? I had been talking to his children as they were similar ages to mine and I'd seen them at some events previously. I said I'd stay with them at mini bus so he could go and search. I suspect today this would be frowned upon in school correctness. It did however lead to a very good long term friendship developing between my family and the said teacher and various pupils from the school and their families. One family is still involved in O and I still chat to them, and one pupil has returned to O and I re-established contact with him through nope sport. This is probably where common sense and 'O' sense overule correct school procedure

[awk]

I agree Carol. I was really talking about normal circumstances.

Having said that, my school won't allow a single member of staff to work on their own off site, and you can't drive school minibus solo if got children passengers either. If it was a school activity, we'd have at least two staff present. (Subtle difference between a school activity, and one where a teacher will be present, and to which parents bring children who are still with parents).

[RJ]

BOF Rules Group had a very sensible debate on this issue, all the arguments expressed in previous mails being raised, and came down very firmly indeed on the side of the Finish having to be manned.

The rules are quite clear... it is advisory. The Organiser can decide if the risk is such that the finish should be manned. LOC at Yewdale reacted to this advice perfectly. The lower senior finish was unmanned and the higher junior one was.

Rules are there to be reviewed and changed as required. In the light of common practice now being adopted David May and his Rules Group may wish to revisit this topic.

So awk is..... I'm in the "finishes should be manned" camp - and think the rule on this is eminently sensible. If you think that we are going to man our Thursday evening event finishes..... get real!

And now to tackle the risk of death etc scenario.....

Rules are fine when dealing with the theoretical.

If there is an injured competitor who is incapable of moving then there are likely to be one, two, three or more other competitors who get involved to help. People will be going to assembly to raise the alarm. The injured person will await the arrival of the safety rucksack with survival bag and sleeping bag. And then the arrival of professional help. Quite often the person is extracted from the area by the shortest route, not necessarily through the finish. In fact, injuries I have seen have happened close to the start. Having someone at the finish will be irrelevant. The assembly area, no matter how far away will have the expertise to summon the professional help required.

In the case of a real emergency a LOT of people become involved and bring the news to the Organiser.

Walking wounded will be helped off the area by another competitor (or two).

[rob f]

what if a finish box failed? it would need to be replaced if there was only 1, and someone needs to be there to do it.

[awk]

Rules are there to be reviewed and changed as required. In the light of common practice now being adopted David May and his Rules Group may wish to revisit this topic..

Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's good practice - I can think of plenty of examples in orienteering!

Sorry RJ, this is something we will just have to disagree on. Absolutely nothing you have said so far this thread has convinced me that unmanned finishes are appropriate -rather the opposite in fact.

BTW, the further way your assembly area is (and there have been some pretty distant ones!), the more need there is to my mind for a manned finish.

[m4rk]

In fact, injuries I have seen have happened close to the start.

Im sure injuries do happen in other places,though

[Brizzle]

what if a finish box failed? it would need to be replaced if there was only 1, and someone needs to be there to do it.

At least read the topic if you are going to contribute, it's even on the same page...

[bendover]

i agree with awk all the way. sorry rj, but in the words of gross you're talking bollocks.

[RJ]

Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's good practice - I can think of plenty of examples in orienteering!

Sorry RJ, this is something we will just have to disagree on. Absolutely nothing you have said so far this thread has convinced me that unmanned finishes are appropriate -rather the opposite in fact.

Good practice is a subset of common practice. Something that is found to work is subjectively selected, assessed and labelled 'good practice'. This works by and large, but I am sure there are many examples of where it is ill conceived.

Unfortunately awk, we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing you have contributed, however, would lead me to believe that you have read, considered and understood my contributions - rather the opposite in fact, that what you have said is glib and demonstrates a closed mind on the subject.

Thank you Ben for your contribution.

../end