IOF new e-punching rule?

[Adventure Racer]

Seeing the mention of radio controls, I'm curious - has anybody ever had mp at a radio control, such that the radio control registered their presence and reported back, but the card didn't register? What would happen under existing rules in this case (given that there is independent evidence of somebody visiting the control without having to interrogate the unit)?

[Gross]

Seeing the mention of radio controls, I'm curious - has anybody ever had mp at a radio control, such that the radio control registered their presence and reported back, but the card didn't register? What would happen under existing rules in this case (given that there is independent evidence of somebody visiting the control without having to interrogate the unit)?

DQ'd. Happened at the WOC Relay in Finland. Lithuanian's 2nd leg was seen at the TV control but DQ'd for not punching... meant Di went out on last leg & was a bit confused why not much noise when finishing 5th.....

[Adventure Racer]

Is that the same as what I'm suggesting, Gross? Was there a time reported back from the control, but not a record on the card?

[FatBoy]

Seeing as I've actually read and understood the bit about error codes now I shall quote it:

There are different error codes describing the completion rate of the punching progress. In case of an uncompleted punch this error code is stored instead of the higher time byte in the non-volatile memory. It is also sent out over the serial output lines if auto send-mode is active.

So in answer to whether somebody could be DQd after having their time come up on a radio control - no, the data would be in the card if the time was sent by the radio. If the radio control came up with one of the error codes for the time then we could all see them heading for trouble...

[FatBoy]

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.

I think this is a much more sensible suggestion.

[Adventure Racer]

So in answer to whether somebody could be DQd after having their time come up on a radio control - no, the data would be in the card if the time was sent by the radio. If the radio control came up with one of the error codes for the time then we could all see them heading for trouble...

Ah, but there is still evidence of them visiting the control then as the station reports a visit, just not a correct time. Has this ever happened?

[IanD]

I agree with Patrick and FatBoy.

If we're going to allow only one "sloppy" punch per course, nobody is going to deliberately punch all but one controls carefully and one "sloppily". So in my view there is no reason for a time penalty, anyone frequently punching "sloppily" will still be disqualified. We didn't have a time penalty in the old days of paper control cards when a maximum of box was punched "sloppily".

I still have reservations about this proposed rule change, since it would inevitably delay results while the SI unit is fetched from the forest to see if it has recorded the visit, or the witness is strapped to a lie detector and made to swear on oath, or whatever.

Perhaps the best solution is to change the electronics to avoid the problem. It doesn't arise with EMIT v3 because the brikke tells you whether you've punched. Clearly feedback from SI units is not sufficient, otherwise people would realise their punch hasn't registered. Perhaps SI units should be amended to flash brighter, or SI cards amended to carry a display. (Or perhaps EMIT is winning the battle of the punching systems, and SI will soon be on the way out?)