Printable View
At the Clougha Pike race on Saturday, organised by Bowland Fell Runners at the start of the the race they did a physical body count into a taped off area so that they would know for sure exactly how many runners set off and how many to expect back. Good idea and maybe something which should be implemented universally ?
Counting runners before the start is usually done in the majority of races that i attend. Just recently i organised a fell race for junior runners and made sure that i counted the runners before they started there race, and good job i did as one runner who had entered had decided not to run and had not told us, so this stopped any confusion for the marshals on the course and at the finish regarding a missing runner.
They do it at every BOFRA race:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
They even did it before BOFRA was formed when it was called The Northern Sports Promoters Association :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
They have been doing it up here at SHR races this year, no worries good idea.
ATB
Tahr
Flip, you want to try counting Juniors on a start line...
Good idea. It is done at most races though, strangely its much more common outside of North Wales than in though. They do it at Cader but otherwise I'm not sure how many do it. The Peris did a kit check which may have also been a count.. but many don't.
The Ben have a tag system, but the one year I was 'missing' I didn't start, and they'd not checked the tags.. so a physical check does seem a nice idea.
I ran in the Black Combe race a few years ago in the clag and went wrong heading off to Bootle. When I eventually finished the organisers had not been aware that there was someone still out on the course. In long races it's important not just to count at the start and finish but also at key check points (which was done at the recent Berwyn race.).Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
For checkpoints it would be really, really useful if runners used FOUR safety pins, one on each corner and didn't fold their numbers. trying to pick a number off a curled up piece of paper as someone runs past ain't that easy. Some numbers are folded up so small that it makes it difficult to pick out the number - it's far easier to read the number off a large white background (I couldn't care less about hiding the sponsors name - that's another argument). Putting numbers on your leg is another problem as invariably they have been folded - see previous point and they also tend to be worn on the side of the leg, again making it more difficult for the check point marshalls as the runners go past. Maybe a sign warning of an impending checkpoint would warn people with jackets on that they need to undo their jackets / get ready to shout their numbers out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
Runners who put their numbers on THEIR BACKPACKS should simply be barred from every race ever! :w00t:
Strange. I've been running races for over 30 years and, other than the BOFRA races already mentioned, I am struggling to recall a single occasion on which runners have been counted on the start line in the way Lefty describes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Yeah most was probably wrong, but its quite a common, I assume its also done as part of the kit check in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by nobbut a lad
There was none at the Trog, and not at shorter races, but at long or medium races it seems pretty common.
I think the fact that Lefty, with all his experience of both competing in and organising races, thought it worth commenting on suggests that it isn't a particularly common practice or perhaps Lefty and I just both run the same races where it isn't done.
Sorry Dom but its all about style for me and buggar all to do with practicality - a folded number on my shorts is the only way that I can possibly do it ;). In my defence I always use four pins, do try and make the number visible, do shout out my number and rarely need to wear my waterproof leggings that would cover the number up.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Don't they do it at Jura, Peris has a proper kit check and possibly a count, cader the same, the ben has the tag system, goatfell similar corraling then kit check/count, the 1000m peaks did this year, its certainly not uncommon...
re number on shorts.. mine almost always goes on the shorts as I tend to run topless a lot. Road races it probably goes on my vest more, but I tend to shout my number out. I tend not to fold if there are sponsors on it.. depends how its fitting on..
I have not experienced a count on The Trigger/Tanky's or the Edale Skyline. The Trigger I would have thought was particularly important with it being a Linear and over some pretty remote moors.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I understand that the first checkpoint is very early on The Trigger so the chances of somebody disappearing on the run up the track along side the reservoirs is pretty remote, but still...
Like the one at the Trog on Sunday. Felt quite sorry for my daughter screaming 'NUMBER PLEASE' as they all appeared out of the mist at Mill Hill!Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Jura - yes, herded into the pen where you give your first tally. Pretty sure they were counting at Peris too. One year at Wasdale they were using tallies and dibbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Ah, so the "simple" system championed by so many on here, is flawed, so it seems - no accurate count at the start, trouble reading race numbers, inaccurate counting of runners back in...Hmmm, wouldn't it be a nice if there was a system available where each competitor had to "dib" at each CP and the start and finish, oh hang on minute, there is!
Didn't you just argue against my suggestion to dib at the start on another thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
I dont think we can place complete faith in either system but if a technical system goes down for whatever reason there frequently seems to be little that can be done about it, at least in the short term. If for example a box 'failed' for some reason - or got lost, broken, or worse still worked intermittently. a) nobody might realise until they needed the info and b) if they did realise there is probably nothing they could do to interrogate it if they needed to. I suppose a likely scenario would be marshalls on a checkpoint needing to know that all the runners had come through, or being asked if number 'xxx' had come through because he or she had not arrived at the next control. At least with a paper system they are likely to have their 'best effort' which might not be absolutely correct but would be a good basis for making some initial decisions.
The best solution is probably to have both. The paper system provides a basic easily accessible source of reference and the dibber system provides a more accurate record with splits etc which can be accessed, if not always immediately, at least at some point to support or negate the info from the paper records.
Finally although there are sometimes dibber only controls on some events I feel that marshalls play a much bigger role than recording numbers etc.
There was a big discussion (argument?) about folding numbers on here a year or two ago. I felt at first that it was a bureaucratic/EA type rule and that by folding my number and wearing it somewhere visible, such as on my shorts instead of under a cag I was actually being helpful but the point was made that wasn't how most marshalls preferred it so I dont anymore.
yeah electronics can fail.. but so do manual versions... GPS can fail.. but planes still fly on it...
Paper is slow and can get wet/blow away etc.
Accept that Iain but the paper system involves humans - I think if electronics go wrong they go wrong and thats it, at least people even though fallible are adaptable and can usually apply some common sense and work round a problem - like pilots navigating if the GPS fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I've known two races where the paper copies blew away or were destroyed.. that's unlikely to happen with dibbers.
Are there many examples of dibbers failing? Dibbers or chip timing are now so commonly used in road or trail running errors are rare..
This is now a tired argument, and one that does not hold up to scrutiny. As has been stated several times by various people, these boxes are extremely reliable - as has been shown from orienteering events. You keep trotting up this unreliability issue, but ignore the available evidence. You also ignore the available evidence that the monitoring of numbers by marshals can be extremely unreliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Regarding the issue of needing to know all runners had been through a CP - whichever system you use, the marshal still needs to report back to HQ. Interrogating the SI box (i.e. downloading to a laptop) and then sorting the data quickly to discover if a particular runner had gone through will still be far, far quicker than having to go through several pages of scribbled numbers.
Yes, you would still need marshals (this has never been disputed), but the SI/dibber/electronic monitoring systems would free up whatever marshals are required to do other jobs. And this system doesn't stop you still recording numbers manually if you felt it was really necessary.
And I believe I said on the other thread that I thought it was unusual for a head count to take place prior to the start. Which, judging by the responses on this thread seem to have been borne out. However, as has been pointed out, using the SI system would allow you to do this if you wish.
However, I feel that it although this is an unusual occasion (although it does occur) for a runner to register, collect their number etc and then fail to start, the onus should be on the runner in question to report to registration to say that they have not started (i.e. taking personal responsibility, which seems to be a big theme on this forum). There should be no distinction made between a runner that fails to do this and a runner who DNFs and doesn't report back to registration, which is obviously taken seriously.
The SI system here would again, allow an extra check, since all runners have to download at registration and return their dibber.
forgive my ignorance here, as I have never been involved in race organisationQuote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
leaving aside start/checkpoint counts, surely there is a finish count which is compared to the registration list?
if people DNS/DNF without informing, then you end up short with the finish count and think people are still out there when they're not
what I don't understand is how you can get a finish count which seems to be right, yet there's somebody still out there - how can this happen?
I always liked the system with the sticky labels being stuck on a board with your time and position on. If there was a sticker left at the end they were still out there!.:thumbup:
Fozzy - surely head counts would always be required for races that are pre-entry, (unless there's a dibber box at the start.) Regarding kit checks, clearly in some circumstances this should be mandatory. But (at the race organisers discretion) for a shorter race on a fine day, make sure runners have bumbags but do a kit check at random.
Edale Skyline used to have a compulsory kit check for all runners - is that not the case now? I thought this was one of the best managed races going!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
All Pre-entry races I've done, you've had to collect your number (and dibber) from registration on race day. I assume that this doubled up as a head count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
I agree - no system is foolproof. Idiocy can not always be accounted for no matter how hard you try. If you do a physical head-count at the start, there will always be someone who sits in their car until 1minute beforehand (after you've done your head count of course) and start anyway. If you have a tag system, someone will forget to drop their tag. Similarly with SI, someone will forget to dib (I favour this system because it should make a ROs life easier, yet I admit it is not foolproof).Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
Whichever system you use, if a runner doesn't abide by the conditions set by the RO and run the race, they should be DQ'd (i.e. the same as if they miss a CP on route, again using whichever system you use). Similarly if not carrying kit when stipulated, the runner should be DQ'd. If a runner does the above and registers, yet fails to start and doesn't inform the RO, then a ban should be handed out. I think 6months was actually quite lenient. The same with DNFs that don't report back to registration.
what happened when the contact & emergency contact numbers of the "missing" runner were phoned (before searchers were sent out)?Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
in any case, this is another example of a "short" count
I'm still waiting for an example of a "long" count - i.e. where a runner is still out but the finish check tallies...
Welsh Harrier - did you ever find out how they thought this had happened to you?
Great discussion guys and lots of food for thought. As Jim (Felljunior) has mentioned there are lots of reasons why problems can arise when accounting for everyone at the finish and given the recent incident I feel that there is some room for the further tightening of care. I was well impressed with the Bowland idea at Clougha Pike and will certainly consider adopting the idea for our own events in the future.
This is why I favour the SI system - it reduces the mis-counting error - you must dib at each CP and the finish and download. And you can include an extra check at the start if required.Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
Barring technical failure (which is unlikely - happens very rarely at orienteering events) and idiocy, you will always get an accurate count. If necessary, it can be backed up with "traditional" paper recording as well.
True and I completely agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
Yes - an unregistered runner had come through ahead of me!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DazTheSlug
My best idea yet is that we should all have chips on our shoulders! :confused:
was the unregistered runner somehow coincidentally wearing your number?Quote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
if not, how were you ticked off?
surely RO's don't rely purely on bulk counts?
Seems to me that regardless of how you plan, life and runners can and will balls it up..... we have a system that mostley works for us..
1. only give numbers out on the day - this gives you a true count of runners
2. have very experienced marshals - especially finish and results
3. check the carpark and don't assume
4. check the tops checkpoints
5. ban anyone failing to notify you of a retirement and let the fra know what has happened