Does Sumo count as waterproof?Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
Printable View
Does Sumo count as waterproof?Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
I think there are two separate but linked issues with the rules - one is the level/type/standard of personal kit required to be carried and I agree totally that what the RO requires is what we should all carry. The only problem with this previously (apart from deliberate actions by a small minority) was differing interpretations of what that meant. Although common sense can be applied a lot of people had different views as evidenced by the ongoing debate here and on the equipment thread. It was a bit like setting a speed limit according to common sense - everyone will drive at a different speed based on what they perceive to be safe and reasonable. l sincerely hope the new rules will bring some clarity and a common accepted standard, they haven't yet but I think things will settle down and we will be in a better position than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Thats all fine but there seems to be a feeling that because most of the extra problems will affect ROs and not runners the rest of it is less important to 'us'. But if ROs start feeling unable to hold races because the rules are too onerous or difficult to comply with then it could affect all of 'us' in a big way. My worry is that some of the rules might be just that in some races and my preference would have been for the FRA to say we know that and accept it. I'm not really referring to administrative procedures, number sequences etc, but to practical things like being able to inform marshals how many runners to expect, who has retired etc, and equally for the marshals to be able to pass important messages to race control quickly if they need to. Thats the bit I dont think is reasonably likely to be achievable all the time.
The vision of Sumo all limp and floppy after detumescence is a little too stark for so early in the evening.Quote:
Originally Posted by wharfeego
The carrying of waterproofs is not really a big deal compared to the problem thar ROs will have with number sequencing for pre-entered races when quite a few don't show.
the extra kit is more bureaucracy but easily managed. we have a long way to go till we get to triathlon rules where one competitor at helvellyn was disqualified for having no lights on his bike on a mild and clear Sunday morning - the rule was they had to be carried even though no one used them.
can you use pins or sticky pads direct on he chest
Always running just never at speed
Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I have counted and over 1/3rd of the FRA Committee are active RO for little races like Sedbergh Hills, Borrowdale, Sailbeck, Coledale, Kinder Trial + a stack of Rossendale/Junior/Keighley & Craven races.
It occurs to me that they, and the rest of the FRA Committee, in contrast with the anonymous "experts" on here, may actually know what they are doing and why.
Just a thought.
Looking at the new draft requirements, it does actually say "For pre-entry races, vest numbers should preferably be issued on the day so there are no pre-allocated but “uncollected” vest numbers."Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I'll pass on the pins in the chest but I'm sure Luvshack and one or two others will give it a go!Quote:
Originally Posted by pegleg
I have to say I feel a little sorry for the committee. They work for us on our behalf for free to provide a safer environment and allow races to go ahead. We all know this yet there's always some complaint about what they do
No one wants to see any injury of a fellow runner but it's in the nature of the places we run that accidents happen. they just want to make sure we improve the odds if some thing does go wrong, they at least can sleep soundly knowing they did there upmost to make our sport less risky.
We can't run races with out insurance, insurance is about gambling on the risk. Reduce the risk and the fees go down allowing races to go ahead.
maybe the beer is talking too much. I'm going to bed. I've a busy weekend. night
Well said ol' chapQuote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Complaining about the details of the new rules: pointless, whatever decisions they have reached are for the good of fellrunning, and are the best that they could come up with. Kit standards change. Rules change.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
But asking for a bit of communication/clarity is fair (obviously I do not know at this time what they have planned for the calendar/magazine)
I know the committee didn't want to name particular items of kit, but for years the Mistlite 130 has been sold in shops as:
- waterproof (rightly or wrongly)
- and meeting FRA requirements
So without some special steps, a lot of people (eg occasional fellrunners, not forumites) will have no clue that this has changed. They could even be permitted with a warning for 6-12 months. I just imagine the committee doing nothing on this, as with the 'heavier than Pertex' issue.
Some guidelines are needed I think, maybe ROs need to start stating now what they would accept / decline.
Or even just the byline that FRA waterproofs are now equivalent to OMM ones would help get across the implications of the new rules.
I would compare it to changing the British Champs rules this year without explicitly mentioning it, so a lot of people did not realise it was any 3 from 4 races.