IOF new e-punching rule?

[FatBoy]

As I've said before I do not believe the fact that the SI station records 1/2 a punch is a failing - I think it is the backup working exactly as designed.

There is no (in the forest) way of looking at an SI card and checking you punched back at the previous control, as opposed to Emit V3 where you can (as long as you understand what the hell it's telling you which took at least 3 races), but realistically the only point you're going to check this is just after leaving the control and only if you weren't sure you punched properly. If you're not sure then go back and do it again! SI doesn't have a LCD because of two reasons: size and no battery in the card - both of which I see as good things.

The paper card backup is nearly useless. As a programmer myself I can see why this was engineered in - as a fail safe in case the electronics went wrong (we have such faith in our own abilities - not). Now they're proven we should remove this. Half the times I've used Emit the paper card wouldn't have been readable in case of electronics failure. Also I keep punching my finger on the spikes

For the record I don't dislike Emit - I quite like the LCD display now I understand it. I'm just stating the other side. There seems to be a perception that SI isn't fit for purpose because one of our elites got DQ'd for punching too quickly. If it was Emit out there then maybe he would've got DQ'd anyway - if one is going to punch that quickly then one wouldn't insert the brick fully and maybe one wouldn't read the screen. There wouldn't be the contreversy though as there would've been no way of proving he punched too quickly.

As for the new rule - I don't like it, although I see a contradiction allowing you one sloppy punch on a manual card. Video evidence of being there cannot be fair unless that camera is on for all competitors, so esentially we're saying it's an SI specific rule which is a bit odd. I say leave the rule like it is and hopefully this will serve as a warning to other competitors to punch properly. I do think orienteering should be about getting round from point to point in the fastest time and not get bogged down in the technicalities of electronics, but unfortunately this proposed rule gives more technicalities not ironing one out.

Personally speaking I have been DQd with manual punching having been to all controls (although fortunately never at a big enough race to worry about it), but never with either of the electronic systems. We're a massive step forward depsite such technicalities.

[Rookie]

Rocky, I was meaning that if it isn't recorded on your card then you haven't punched (the current rule).

A sloppy punch with pins IS still recorded on your card so technically is OK, but rule 20.8 was written to stop people doing that all the time to gain an advantage.

A "sloppy punch" with SI isn't recorded on your card so doesn't count. Analogous to picking up the pin punch but not pressing the pins through the control card.

People should just punch properly.

EMIT is growing on me now, with being based in OD land at uni. I never use the back-up card now, though it was interesting in Norway over the summer seeing the Norwegian juniors (who use EMIT all the time) placing the card fully in the unit even when they didn't have a back-up card (small evening event/training)

[Knee Deep Mud!]

By mentioning EMIT v3 I hadn't meant to spark the Emit v SI debate again, I was just trying to illustrate the point that with Emit the competitor is able to check that their card has registered a punch correctly. They are unable to currently do this with SI. Both systems still have a ways to go to become perfectly fit for purpose, but each for different reasons. Both are miles better than pin punching!

Having reread the wording of the rules, I think people are mis interpreting them. Whilst rule Rule 20.8 does allow for sloppy positioning of the punch, it still requires that "all punch marks can be identified clearly" i.e. the punch still has to be correctly registered by the card. Electronic punching of either sort removes the possibility for punching in the wrong place on the card. So we are just left with the issue of not clearly registering the punch on the card. I think that the existing rules are perfectly clear and adequate for purpose - no punch registered = disqualification.

Yes, I'm sure that sooner or later I'll fall foul of this rule, and be suitably p"££$d off by the DQ, but that's life.

Rather than rule changes to cover up for equipment faults, perhaps the IOF should be helping SI & Emit to produce systems that will operate more reliably in all circumstances. Perhaps we need an official IOF technical performance specification for what an electronic timing system needs to be capable of, rather than living with what the suppliers offer us, warts and all?

[AndyO]

Rookie, I have had experience of being DQ'd with Emit at local events (there were a number of instances when we first got Emit) because there was a belief that all that needed to happen to record a punch was for the transmitter signal to be received by the aerial (I forget which is which with Emit)so it was not necessary to insert the brikke fully into the control unit.

The problem was not helped by using the version 3 brikkes with the LCD display, when you want to look at the display to confirm that the punch has been recorded, and check your leg time and elapsed time, so experiment with how to hold the card for comfort/ease of punching.

The answer for me is to ensure that the brikke is fully in the control unit, even if I'm not using a back-up card, and for me that means attaching the card to my thumb with the display side to my palm so I can't see it , which has the added benefit of not disracting me from my course

[Safety]

Lookin back at the rules, i was under the impression that the "sloppy punch" was to cover for people who in the days before SI and EMIT may struggle to actually punch through the card due to cold hands, wet tyvek, etc, and so ended up making a mess of a punch, rather than to cover for people who tried to punch the card to fast. In which case, I feel the rule should stand as it is as I feel there is no argument that people cannot place a SI Card accuretly in a box and wait till a flash, or with E-mit, place the card entirely in the slot and wait for a flash. If you try to shortcut the system to save seonds off your time, then on your peril be it. There are obviously ways you can speed up punching the control as there was with the old system. Quite simply, if you want to speed up getting around the course, either run faster or navigate better, don't try and cheat the system as it is the same for everyone.

I see the backup being more use for if the portion of the box that writes to the card goes down for multiple people, you can still check who punched and who was just lucky that the control that they didn't punch properly wasn't working.

If you change to the new rule, how long is it going to be before someone walks up to enquiries saying this person saw me punch the control, when in fact the person was no where near the site but has agreed to say that they saw it just to let the person get positioned? Or vice versa people taking risks on controls when people they know are around as they know they have a backup. I think this rule will just cause more controversy and will benefit people running at times when lots of people are around who already may have advantages of seeing people run in-out of controls ahead of them, and the well known elephant tracks to follow.

My vote, leave the rule as it is, it is there for a reason, everyone understands it, and there are no loopholes.

[tendon]

"At the competitive and elite level Orienteering is a highly competitive sport involving intense concentration, skill and fitness running against the best in the world at international competitions....where competitors navigate their way between control points marked on a specially drawn map."

Front page of the BOF web site - nothing about it being a test of electronic wizardry or manual dexterity.

Punching is not a primary orienteering skill, but is a tool to demonstrate that the navigation element has been successfully completed. Running through an electronic gate, or past a man with a clipboard or ... in front of a crowd (hypothetically) equally demonstrates that the control has been visited.

If, by whatever means, a competitor can prove he has been to a control, he should be credited as such, without penalty.

[IanD]

If, by whatever means, a competitor can prove he has been to a control, he should be credited as such, without penalty.

But when have you "been to" a control? If competitor A punches "properly" and competitor B saves two seconds by waving an arm in the direction of the kite, relying on the presence of witnesses, and then goes on to win by one second...
Large can of worms here, perhaps best left unopened?

[tendon]

Perhaps I should have said "auditable means" and, rather than been to a control, "performed a validation at the control".

[NeilC]

Would you have to punch the man with the clipboard in order to validate your visit?

[tendon]

I guess the summons would count as an auditable demonstration that the defendant had been to the control

[graeme]

email from David May, Commission member, posted at his request.

I'd like to add something to the nopesport debate about the proposed
change to the e-punching rule but, as posting as a Guest is not
possible and, as I do not wish to register as a member, I'd be
grateful if you could post the text below on my behalf:-

"Before the IOF has its name muddied even more I'd like, as a member
of the IOF Foot-O Commission which (together with the IT Commission)
is proposing the Rule change, to clarify the background to our
thinking.

Firstly, many contributors are forgetting that the current Rule says,
in effect, that no matter what other evidence there might be that a
competitor has visited a control, if there's no record in their
SI-card they must be disqualified. Having sat on IOF Juries when this
issue has come up, I know that there is no other option under the
Rules as they are currently phrased. In our view, this is a totally
disproportionate penalty for someone who has been guilty of no worse
an offence than "sloppy punching".

Frauke, in her posting to the Elite Reference Group, emphasised the
fact that sloppy punching was OK in the days of control cards (one
mistake per competitor was acceptable) so why should the equivalent
offence lead to disqualification in these electronic times?

Now, we didn't want to encourage runners to attempt to shave tenths
of seconds of their time by punching so hastily that more
"mispunches" happen, so we were certain that some sanction should
follow in cases where there was no punch in the e-card yet there was
evidence in the control unit. We felt that the only practicable
sanction which could be levied was that of a time penalty, something
which is very common in many other sports but which is not a feature
of orienteering, Micr-O excepted. Without such a sanction, we either
have to revert to the disqualification rule or we have no penalty at
all.

If the principle of a time penalty is accepted, then the debate
should then change to what that penalty should be. Initially, a value
of 10 seconds was proposed but this then grew to 30 seconds at a
later stage, a figure which I personally feel is much too large,
especially for a Sprint race. An alternative would be to make the
penalty a fixed fraction (1%, say) of the runner's total time. I'd be
grateful for views on an appropriate sanction.

Personally, I think the reinstatement/time penalty should only apply after a protest (with appropriate returnable fee). It would be *far* too much work to expect organisers to check every box in case someone sloppy-punched there.

[Adventure Racer]

Personally, I think the reinstatement/time penalty should only apply after a protest (with appropriate returnable fee). It would be *far* too much work to expect organisers to check every box in case someone sloppy-punched there.

I don't see how that is any different from what anybody is suggesting, given that there is no need to do anything at all unless somebody with a mp protests.

It's not made very explicit, but presumably the same standard would be applied as with pin-punching - only one sloppy punch per competitor is allowed, otherwise they will be disqualified. Noting this, the deliberate careless punching strawman has packed up and gone home, realising that he's not in a fair fight.

The only remaining question then is what standard of evidence is required to prove you visited a control. Given the unfairness of whether or not different people had witnesses, surely the only sensible approach is interrogating the box in all such cases - if required switching the box in the forest in order to bring it in to interrogate it. Extra work for organisors, but justifiable work at major events - at more minor events there is not the time pressure on results, so boxes can be interrogated at leisure if necessary.

[NeilC]

The slippery slope argument could be used here though. So appeals are upheld when the unit confirms a visit but the card doesn't. Is there anything fundamentally different between this and where there is no record in either card or unit but there is video evidence that the competitor was at the control - but in this case sloppy punching meant missing the hole by 1cm? Video evidence then becomes spectator or fellow competitor evidence which then becomes GPS evidence which then becomes DNA fingerprinting evidence etc etc

[Patrick]

The slippery slope argument could be used here though. So appeals are upheld when the unit confirms a visit but the card doesn't. Is there anything fundamentally different between this and where there is no record in either card or unit but there is video evidence that the competitor was at the control...

Yes! For a start it doesn't rely on the presence of a video camera, or of any other "reliable" witness. Therefore it's a solution which could in principle be applied at any event as opposed to the tiny minority where TV coverage occurs. Also, you can't always tell whether someone has actually punched - just that they visited the control. What if the runner's body is between the camera and the punch at the vital moment? The same applies to any other visual record - the only acceptable evidence should be that which resides within the punching system itself.

Like other people though, I have huge reservations about the proposal - especially the time penalty aspect - which are not satisfied by David May's comments. No matter how you define a suitable time penalty, the resultant effect on a competitor is highly arbitrary. As has been stated before, it is virtually impossible to deliberately punch "sloppily" in the manner the rule addresses, so the idea that people are intentionally cheating by doing so is quite ridiculous.

I much prefer the suggestion of being able to appeal just one "sloppy" punch per race without any penalty. This addresses any possibility of systematic "cheating" while preventing the competitor from being unduly harshly affected by isolated errors (either theirs or the equipment's). The only disadvantage is that you still have to interrogate the units, but if any change were to be made to the current rule, then that is the one that I'd prefer.

On a sidenote, can someone ask David May why exactly he "does not wish to register as a member". Do we all smell funny or something?

Cheers,

Patrick

[Mrs H.]

Yes I was wondering that as he used to post quite often as a guest .