dibber or die !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

Blimey:) Are you on commission?

As I said, I'm not an RO, but I imagine it's a lot easier to run a race with a couple of friends on mountain tops than to arrange a dibber system with all that entails. Is that ok? I thought that was a pretty simple statement.

I also said I have no complaints if a RO decides to use the dibber system. No complaints at all.

The unfortunate thing, in my opinion, would be if this system was imposed, a result of regulations. One of the best things about fell running, for me, and I imagine a good few who actually do it, is the simplicity of it.

Some people seem to be inviting regulation.

---

Who suggested imposing it? I suggested the FRA purchase dibber sets to give to RO's.. on a recent thread..

You also mentioned it as an 'aid to safety'.

If you want spilts, accurate timing, absolute garentees that each runner has visited each control (you asked me what the difference beween a dibber and a marshal are, well, lots of races I've done Marshals haven't checked race numbers at each check pont so there's a huge element of trust) then fine and I'm fully supportive... but as an additional safety measure which you posted and L.F.F and I are questioning then no I don't want it.

And wtf does 'do you read the Daily Mail' have to do with anything.

Just fear.. creating fear..

Of course its also a safety aid.. that's why you also have marshalls.. but in rain paper gets wet, obliterates, who passed? who is still out? Dibbers help.. but they don't provide anything we don't already have, they just do it more reliably and easier, so when marshalls fail, dibbers don't. So for me they provide an extra level of security, than simple marshalls do.

have you read guides for race organisers:

"13 RACE MONITORING AND RESCUE PROCEDURE
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a
position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out
the rescue services. This means that each individual runner must be checked around
the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is
known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally
sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the
completion of long races before an alert is raised.
The monitoring system used is the responsibility of the race organiser but advice can
be obtained from the FRA Secretary. "

What you are against, already happens..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Just fear.. creating fear..

Of course its also a safety aid.. that's why you also have marshalls.. but in rain paper gets wet, obliterates, who passed? who is still out? Dibbers help.. but they don't provide anything we don't already have, they just do it more reliably and easier, so when marshalls fail, dibbers don't. So for me they provide an extra level of security, than simple marshalls do.

have you read guides for race organisers:

"13 RACE MONITORING AND RESCUE PROCEDURE
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a
position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out
the rescue services. This means that each individual runner must be checked around
the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is
known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally
sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the
completion of long races before an alert is raised.
The monitoring system used is the responsibility of the race organiser but advice can
be obtained from the FRA Secretary. "

What you are against, already happens..

---

That goes back to what I said before, though: it's a question of how the monitoring is done. The simpler the better I'd imagine most ROs would say?

and surely there is nothing simpler than inserting a dibber. than marshalls scribbling down numbers in the pouring rain..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

and surely there is nothing simpler than inserting a dibber. than marshalls scribbling down numbers in the pouring rain..

---

I see what you're saying, but that's not the whole picture really, is it? In terms of the infrastructure, costs, complications where dibbers are lost etc.

That's all pretty simple. Losing a dibber is a pain.. but we spend £70-90 every few months on trainers.. in the grand scheme ist cheap..

That's all pretty simple? We've got a different view on what constitutes simple.

In bad weather conditions, I rather have a dibber on a summit than expose a volunteer marshall to getting hypothermic!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

I'm not an RO, but I'd imagine if I was organising a race, setting up a dibber system would feel very different to using marshalls.

You also said 'some level of checking is necessary'. No one's disputed that. It's how the checking's done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

You also mentioned it as an 'aid to safety'.

If you want spilts, accurate timing, absolute garentees that each runner has visited each control (you asked me what the difference beween a dibber and a marshal are, well, lots of races I've done Marshals haven't checked race numbers at each check pont so there's a huge element of trust) then fine and I'm fully supportive... but as an additional safety measure which you posted and L.F.F and I are questioning then no I don't want it.

---

Why is negative to use a system that improves safety in a race? I fail to see your argument against it!

And nobody has mentioned regulations. I believe that IainR and I (and others) said that we believe using SI (or other commercially available viable alternative if you prefer) would aid some (if not most) med/long races and help the RO, and as an added benefit would allow monitoring of where runners were, which would be of a benefit should unfortunate incidents occur on a race, such as someone getting lost...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanneke

In bad weather conditions, I rather have a dibber on a summit than expose a volunteer marshall to getting hypothermic!!!

---

I think that's the best thing about them really. I honestly don't understand why people are moaning about this. The FRA could buy a few sets and lend them out to ROs who need them like Iain suggested.

This sort proactive approach could actually safe guard the sport in the future, if heaven forbid something tragic happens to a runner. If I was organising a race like The Great Lakes I would want to use the system and as a runner I'd rather carry a dibber than a big bangle of tags like you do at the Full Tour of Pendle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

Blimey:) Are you on commission?

As I said, I'm not an RO, but I imagine it's a lot easier to run a race with a couple of friends on mountain tops than to arrange a dibber system with all that entails. Is that ok? I thought that was a pretty simple statement.

I also said I have no complaints if a RO decides to use the dibber system. No complaints at all.

The unfortunate thing, in my opinion, would be if this system was imposed, a result of regulations. One of the best things about fell running, for me, and I imagine a good few who actually do it, is the simplicity of it.

Some people seem to be inviting regulation.

---

No, I'm not on commission, but I've used SI in races and orienteering and I can see that it would make things a lot easier for some races.

Also, since you're not an RO, you've no idea how hard it can be to get "a couple of friends" to marshal. I was RO race for the XC our club organised this winter and it was difficult enough to get 15 volunteers out to marshal in a local park, never mind on top a hill in the rain! And this is from a reasonably sized running club.

Also no-one mentioned regulation except you - Iain and I both suggested that SI is a viable alternative to using marshals for race monitoring, which might make life easier for a RO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

I think that's the best thing about them really. I honestly don't understand why people are moaning about this. The FRA could buy a few sets and lend them out to ROs who need them like Iain suggested.

This sort proactive approach could actually safe guard the sport in the future, if heaven forbid something tragic happens to a runner. If I was organising a race like The Great Lakes I would want to use the system and as a runner I'd rather carry a dibber than a big bangle of tags like you do at the Full Tour of Pendle.

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

... but as an additional safety measure which you posted and L.F.F and I are questioning then no I don't want it.

---

What you want doesn't matter here - it is entirely the race organiser's call how to track runners - if he/she want additional safety measures they can impose them!
If you are worried about race organisers being forced to use dibbers when they don't think they need them, then there'd be a debate

I like the idea mentioned previously of the FRA having sets of dibbers available for RO's to use, obviously with the SI system...

I also race bikes and the LVRC (veteran league) has a set of timing chips etc to lend to race organisers. It works well, apart from when more than one organiser wants it for the same weekend...

I would certainly rather go and put a dibbing point up on the summit in bad weather than send my lovely summit marshall up to get cold, wet and potentially hypothermic! All right to keep moving in the cold and wet, but standing still for hours isn't much fun! I have been there and done that myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britta

What you want doesn't matter here - it is entirely the race organiser's call how to track runners - if he/she want additional safety measures they can impose them!
If you are worried about race organisers being forced to use dibbers when they don't think they need them, then there'd be a debate

---

Well put!
I'm 100% for simplicity and purity in fell running.
As a previous RO, I think I would embrace dibbers for any long event. Worrying about marshals and the safety of runners would be very much eased by their presence. I've only raced once with dibbers, in an OMM. Seem great to me. If they get cheaper, I'm sure we'd all get one.
How about including a Dibber in the membership/membership renewal package? Would show the FRA to be proactive in simple but effective measures to maximising safety on the fells?

I like having dibbers in a race, it makes results more interesting, although being petty I'd like to use my own instead of having to hire one but that would be more awkward for race organisers so no problem there.

However, there seems to be some confusion around the safety aspect of using dibbers, unless the units are linked to some form of radio equipment then they tell the RO nothing about the progress of competitors. You can "interrogate" the boxes to find out who has been through but that would involve linking it physically to a laptop. The system does give you good confirmation of finishers and where they've been but only after they've finished. In their basic form they are no safer than conventional systems of checkpoint marshalling but much better for post race pub chats and split comparisons.

I'm sure Martin Stone could give much more detail about the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britta

What you want doesn't matter here - it is entirely the race organiser's call how to track runners - if he/she want additional safety measures they can impose them!
If you are worried about race organisers being forced to use dibbers when they don't think they need them, then there'd be a debate

---

That's the debate I thought we were having! I don't think anyone's moaning about using them if the RO decides they want to. I think the concern is that ROs might be forced to in the future, or feel that they ought to, and around the extra burden/expense this creates for them on top of all the other work they put into putting on a race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boghobbit

I'd like to use my own instead of having to hire one but that would be more awkward for race organisers so no problem there.

---

Most Orienteers have their own and it doesn't cause any problems for ROs there. When you buy the dibber, you can submit information, such as FRA membership number, running club, name etc, and use submit your SI card number when you enter any particular race (inc EOD races) and the information is matched up on the computer at Download.

If Fell Running was invented today, do you think dibbers would automatically be included as the best way of helping the event go better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boghobbit

I like having dibbers in a race, it makes results more interesting, although being petty I'd like to use my own instead of having to hire one but that would be more awkward for race organisers so no problem there.

However, there seems to be some confusion around the safety aspect of using dibbers, unless the units are linked to some form of radio equipment then they tell the RO nothing about the progress of competitors. You can "interrogate" the boxes to find out who has been through but that would involve linking it physically to a laptop. The system does give you good confirmation of finishers and where they've been but only after they've finished. In their basic form they are no safer than conventional systems of checkpoint marshalling but much better for post race pub chats and split comparisons.

I'm sure Martin Stone could give much more detail about the system.

---

Totally agree - a scenario to consider..... a runner falls and is injured/unable to continue within sight of a marshall but off the main race route and out of sight of other runners, as is possible with clag down/conditions like Saturday, the marshall can then make the necessary 'call' as to how to assist the injured runner. If this marshall was replaced by the dibber system then surely you have serious problems/delays in attending to the injured runner?

So to me, from a safety angle, marshalls are still required, although obviously marshall safety also has to be considered.

Yes, it would be if it was up to me! We would all use the SI system! Excellent way of tracking runners on the fells and so much safer than having marshalls out for hours in all weathers... Also, it takes a lot of time to get the message of a potentially missing runner back to HQ if a CP marshall will have to do it. I have been CP/summit marshall at long and medium races and it is very difficult to actually track all runners through your CP... they may miss it, you may miss them or not get their number because it is covered with a waterproof. I know most local runners, however, it goes a bit far to know all of them!!!

With the SI dibber system, you will know in reasonable time, if you have live transmission on say one or two of them, where runners have gone missing and you can send out help before the race is over, which could be hours!!!!

It would certainly give me piece of mind, as I feel responsible for both my marshalls and my runners!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

If Fell Running was invented today, do you think dibbers would automatically be included as the best way of helping the event go better?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

How about including a Dibber in the membership/membership renewal package? Would show the FRA to be proactive in simple but effective measures to maximising safety on the fells?

---

That sort of statment concerns me slightly. First concern is, who are they showing? The second is, is it for the FRA to be maximising our safety? It goes back to the personal responsibility point. We go into it with our eyes open don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

If Fell Running was invented today, do you think dibbers would automatically be included as the best way of helping the event go better?

---

Yes, some form of electronic monitoring would be I suspect, whether it be SI or GPS or whatever.

Orienteering moved from a "pin-punching" method to SI/Emit some time ago. I've only just started orienteering, but I don't hear anyone bemoaning that the change has done anything but enhance the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

That sort of statment concerns me slightly. First concern is, who are they showing? The second is, is it for the FRA to be maximising our safety? It goes back to the personal responsibility point. We go into it with our eyes open don't we?

---

google fell running safety... you'll get a load of sheets to read..

Re the point about marshalls.. OK you have real time, dibbers, you know a runner went through point X and isn't at point Y.. you know what time he went through point X. The marshall is only any use there if he sees him fall, which in most longs, with long distances between CP's is unlikely.. more likely will be a fellow runner, but if not the dibber system will increase the chances of firstly knowing he's missing and secondly where he last was..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Multiterrainer

Totally agree - a scenario to consider..... a runner falls and is injured/unable to continue within sight of a marshall but off the main race route and out of sight of other runners, as is possible with clag down/conditions like Saturday, the marshall can then make the necessary 'call' as to how to assist the injured runner. If this marshall was replaced by the dibber system then surely you have serious problems/delays in attending to the injured runner?

So to me, from a safety angle, marshalls are still required, although obviously marshall safety also has to be considered.

---

How would a runner be off course and out of sight of a runner, yet in sight of a marshall on that route...

You'll still need marshalls, you'll probably have less, and also have observant marshalls not fervantly scribbling down numbers on wet paper..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

google fell running safety... you'll get a load of sheets to read..

Re the point about marshalls.. OK you have real time, dibbers, you know a runner went through point X and isn't at point Y.. you know what time he went through point X. The marshall is only any use there if he sees him fall, which in most longs, with long distances between CP's is unlikely.. more likely will be a fellow runner, but if not the dibber system will increase the chances of firstly knowing he's missing and secondly where he last was..

---

Had a quick look and it seems to confirm the personal responsibility point.

Noone is against personal responsibility.. I've said that time and time again re shortening of races.. I just think we have technology which reduces errors (which do happen), so use it.. don't enforce it. I fail to see how they will, or have, change the ethos of fell running in the slightest. They are just an improved quicker version of the current system.

The Ben race use tags. I registered to get my buff, but didn't start. That night I was phoned as they were about to send out a search party. We had 2 tags, one for the start, one for the summit. The start tag shows you started, the summit tag shows you summitted, you get counted in.. so if I'd not put my tag at the start why were they looking for me?

The system had failed. This was 7 pm on a day of pretty bad weather. Had I been in trouble it probably would have been too late anyway. The SIS system would have shown I hadn't started. They'd also not checked the summit tags. I accet I confused things by registering, but I'd just ran the UTMB and thought I'd get my buff for entering, but not start as I had the commonwealths 100k soon..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

How would a runner be off course and out of sight of a runner, yet in sight of a marshall on that route...

You'll still need marshalls, you'll probably have less, and also have observant marshalls not fervantly scribbling down numbers on wet paper..

---

Sorry, I didn't specifically mean that route, just those conditions, and said it is 'possible' - guess I'm thinking worse case scenario, and a much smaller field than Saturday's (A Welsh race perhaps ;)) where it is entirely possible for runners to be spread out and to be coming into checkpoints from various directions - it has been known.

yeah of course.. but if a marshall is at a CP.. 1. they'll be too busy counting people through, I always am, they'll be struggling writing in the rain, 2. runners will also pass that CP so they could see this runner..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

The SIS system would have shown I hadn't started.

---

Not quite true, because all the dibber actually does is record the time at which it is placed into the SI box, so for example, you start at 10am, you dib at CP1 at 10.13, which is recorded, CP 2 at 10.45, which is recorded, finish at 11am, which is again recorded. You then go to download and the software works out that it took you 13mins to 1, 32 mins to 2 and 15mins to finish, and 1hr overall.

Now, at most O events, you "punch" at the start Kite - i.e. dib the box at the start and head off. For races it's slightly different as you don't have a punching start and instead, I believe a common start time is input into the software and the race time calculated from that (this is also done at large O events like the british champs, where everyone has their own specific start time, but the point is it that doesn't have to be encoded on the dibber).

So, you could have collected your SI card from registration, but you the system would have shown you as having started. To avoid this, you would have had to report to download, so they could put you down as a DNF, but you could have done this within seconds of the racing having started if you wished, and you'd have then be counted in.

But your original point is still valid, because provided you downloaded, you'd have been counted out and then counted back in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

yeah of course.. but if a marshall is at a CP.. 1. they'll be too busy counting people through, I always am, they'll be struggling writing in the rain, 2. runners will also pass that CP so they could see this runner..

---

Both are true but with no marshall (with possible radio contact to Finish field?) there and just a dibber point I'd imagine it would take longer to call for assistance if required (my personal view).

Anyway I agree with the 'use it but don't enforce it' view on dibber systems, and indeed any technological advances which may aid overall safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

yeah of course.. but if a marshall is at a CP.. 1. they'll be too busy counting people through, I always am, they'll be struggling writing in the rain, 2. runners will also pass that CP so they could see this runner..

---

Whilst I think the SI system would help simply some things, I still think some (but not as many) marshals would be needed out on the course to look out for potential problems, but as you say, they can be alert for runners drifting off course, rather than having feverishly count runners and scribble illegible numbers down.

Can't remember who raised the issue about the box just being the box until plugged into a PC, but yes this is true. However, I am sure that in this day of smartphones etc, an app could be developed that allowed the box to bluetooth to a marshal's phone and he could then immediately see how many runners had passed through. I suspect that on most races though, where there is EOD, that a lot of marshals at CPs don't know how many started the race anyway?

I think sportident can be real time.. the 3 peaks race progress can be viewed real time..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I think sportident can be real time.. the 3 peaks race progress can be viewed real time..

---

Yeah, I think they used radio controls for it, which I think must be more expensive. They had radio controls at the British Sprint and Middle O champs, but it's not normal at even fairly big regional O events as far as I am aware.

Ok.. I was getting confused then, I know some of the ultra's do too so I was sure it was possible..

Three peaks cyclocross has 'live' recording of where competitors are on the course through SI... I did my bit last year and 'played' MR, then went and found MR so the lady in question could be helicoptered out. After alerting MR and knowing help was at hand, I left and alerted the nearest CP of that persons incident. They recorded it there and then... but I seem to remember a laptop being used. They also definitely have a radio point on top of Whernside, but not sure if that was for SI or MR...

FYI, My husband was on PyG at this year's Three Peaks, and his job was to operate the laptop linked to the dibber box, to make sure the real-time feed of results back the event field was ok. He and the techie guys spent about half an hour trying to get a signal and couldn't, partly because the wind kept blowing the aerial over, so that box wasn't part of the real-time feed. The information was only useful once the box was carried back to the event field and downloaded into the system.

I help organise the Wharfedale TTT in Kettlewell, and for the long Saturday race we use the old-style tags on a plastic ring (one for each checkpoint), backed up by marshals noting numbers. We also have walkie talkie radios, but the landscape means there are always blackspots, and as for mobile phone reception.....! Runners have to come and sign in for each race and collect their number, that way we know how many runners are on the course, and we also have at least one sweeper out on the course to keep an eye on what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Britta

What you want doesn't matter here - it is entirely the race organiser's call how to track runners - if he/she want additional safety measures they can impose them!
If you are worried about race organisers being forced to use dibbers when they don't think they need them, then there'd be a debate

---

OK, once again for the hard of understanding. Nobody is arguing against the use of dibbers, I actually like the bloody things! and it's obviously a ROs pergoragative to do as they wish and I'll happily comply with that, but the debate started around IainR's comments around safety and LFFs and I's concern around the possibility of them becoming compulsory. .. but hey let's not let the facts get in the way of a good punch up! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fishy

FYI, My husband was on PyG at this year's Three Peaks, and his job was to operate the laptop linked to the dibber box, to make sure the real-time feed of results back the event field was ok.

---

So we lose marshalls, which is safer for them as they don't have to stay on top of hills for hours. But we gain tech support guys, who sit with a dibber station to ensure that the dibber box is talking to the field. That's progress :)