DQ the cheats

[Mike T]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;445458]I was reflecting on this today in PBS:

9a "whole body cover" was always meant to mean and does mean a top with a hood (not least because if your top has a hood it will not blow away like a hat can)

9b "other body cover" meant and does mean things like gloves, hat, and if the RO feels like specifying it, a balaclava.

If "whole body cover" meant hat and gloves there would have been no need for a rule 9b.

It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this. The current rules have stood for decades without causing anyone any difficulty but that was, of course, BF (Before Forum).

Rule 9 also allows a RO to demand any other equipment he likes: eg mobile radios.

The approach of the FRA is to set a minimum level consistent with safety, gaining race insurance, etc and that will be implemented by RO and accepted by runners.

The FRA Committee (made up of active fellrunners and RO) will not set the bar so high or specify equipment so explicitly that the real world of fellrunning ignores its position, which is why the rules have lasted with relatively little alteration for 30 years.[/QUOTE

Is it not time to admit that the wording of 9a and 9b is really quite poor and, in the modern parlance,"unfit for purpose"? I suspect the current rules have caused problems/confusion in the past, it is just there was no easy way for these to be aired, unlike now.

[IainR]

.[/QUOTE

Is it not time to admit that the wording of 9a and 9b is really quite poor and, in the modern parlance,"unfit for purpose"? I suspect the current rules have caused problems/confusion in the past, it is just there was no easy way for these to be aired, unlike now.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how much of the original decision was affected by the differing weights of waterproof V wind proof... which is now almost negligible..

[andy k]

If weight is the issue then why not make everybody carry a minimum weight bum bag ?
say 1kg. within that they will ba able to accommodate the necessary safety kit, they just then need to add some ballast.
Simply place a set of scales at the start and finish to weigh people in and out and you are sorted.

[noel]

If weight is the issue then why not make everybody carry a minimum weight bum bag ?
say 1kg. within that they will ba able to accommodate the necessary safety kit, they just then need to add some ballast.
Simply place a set of scales at the start and finish to weigh people in and out and you are sorted.

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

[Derby Tup]

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

Apart from the fact you forgot to mention flogging for folk with waterproofs without taped seams and tarring and feathering anyone with a folded number it appears fine and very workable :closed:

[dominion]

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

You haven't considered weight loss during the event - which would negate the need to consider the weight of the mud?

[Graham Breeze]

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

THIS is what the Forum was invented for! Radical, lateral thinking instead of the sameoldsameold.

If you think you could stand the incessant, unthinking abuse from hoi polloi you could be on the Committee. Or with the intellectual qualities you display: perhaps you already are?

[simgreen78]

In North Wales we simply do not have enough runners, 13 runners in a recent race... so for me the promotion of the sport is a no brainer issue in certain areas.

In my opinion a few of our PD races have the opposite problem. Overpromotion. A few odd situations have cropped up in the last couple of years, predominantly through more people turning up to run than a particular race can reasonably accomodate, or at least it expected to accomodate (regardless of race limit), both practically and administratively. We've had massive influxes of 'first timers'. From there, we run into the problem touched on in this thread and others where we have people rolling up to race but not really having any idea about kit requirements and the like. As this has occurred mainly in midweek evening races throughout the summer it is as such not so great an issue, but I sometimes worry that we have a heck of a lot of people out there with little concept of mountain craft. Not that we have 'mountains' :wink:. I feel that some of the races have suffered a bit.

It's a tricky one because it's not anybody's fault. The RO can only estimate how many runners might turn up, they don't possess a crystal ball. The runners (whether seasoned fell experts or complete first timers) are well within their rights to race wherever they want to. But how to balance it out for a safe and productive outcome for everybody?

However 13 runners for a race is at the opposite end of the spectrum. What steps do you think need to be taken to promote more in your area Iain?

I'm rambling. I guess this is for a different thread isn't it?!

[Witton Park]

9 EQUIPMENT
Competitors should arrive at races prepared to carry any or all of the following equipment:-
a. Windproof whole body cover.
b. Other body cover appropriate for the weather conditions.
c. Map and compass suitable for navigating the course.
d. Whistle.
e. Emergency food (long races).
These requirements constitute “best practice” and are mandatory at all Category A Long and Medium races.
However any race organiser is free to impose additional safety requirements (e.g. waterproof as distinct from
windproof whole body cover) and competitors must be prepared to accept such requirements as a condition
of race entry.
In the event of settled fine weather, confirmed by a local weather report, the organiser may decide to waive
some of the above requirements for races of other categories.
Organisers must ensure that whatever requirements they specify on the day are met by holding complete or
random checks before and after the start of the race.
Race organisers should be aware of the dangers of hypothermia if injury to runners causes them to stop or
slow to a walking pace. Body heat is lost quickly and in cold, wet or windy weather the onset of hypothermia
can be very rapid unless sufficient warm clothing is carried. This factor should influence decisions on the
extra equipment runners are required to carry in poor or unsettled weather conditions. If necessary the fact
that the weather creates a high risk of hypothermia should be stressed to competitors.

I really cannot see that this needs any review.
a. Is clear - this is a minimum requirement and I think if someone has a jacket without hood that shouldn't be an issue. There is the additional warning that waterproof may be requested and anyone who turns up at a race without waterproof jacket and trousers are risking not being allowed to run to start with and also risking their own well being if they get passed the ROs scrutiny.
b.Covers not just hat and gloves, but sun protection which for me was equally important at Duddon a few years ago when I was out for 6 hours on a super warm day.
It basically means be prepared and we should all do that. We have our different ways of being prepared and so some flexibility has to be given by ROs as to the different efforts that athletes make to be comfortable and safe.

We cannot start getting too prescriptive and officious or where does it all end? Do we stop someone running around a race in trail shoes instead of fell shoes? Do we insist that gaiters are worn?
Do we have to specify what counts as emergency food and how much of it we have to carry?
Do we have to sound check the whistles?

What we have is fine, generally works. If organisers have any event specific requirements like radio or mobi then that will be in the race info to start with and if the regular equipment that we take is deemed insufficient on the day, then probably the race should be cancelled.

[Graham Breeze]

9 EQUIPMENT
Competitors should arrive at races prepared to carry any or all of the following equipment:-
a. Windproof whole body cover.
b. Other body cover appropriate for the weather conditions.
c. Map and compass suitable for navigating the course.
d. Whistle.
e. Emergency food (long races).
These requirements constitute “best practice” and are mandatory at all Category A Long and Medium races.
However any race organiser is free to impose additional safety requirements (e.g. waterproof as distinct from
windproof whole body cover) and competitors must be prepared to accept such requirements as a condition
of race entry.
In the event of settled fine weather, confirmed by a local weather report, the organiser may decide to waive
some of the above requirements for races of other categories.
Organisers must ensure that whatever requirements they specify on the day are met by holding complete or
random checks before and after the start of the race.
Race organisers should be aware of the dangers of hypothermia if injury to runners causes them to stop or
slow to a walking pace. Body heat is lost quickly and in cold, wet or windy weather the onset of hypothermia
can be very rapid unless sufficient warm clothing is carried. This factor should influence decisions on the
extra equipment runners are required to carry in poor or unsettled weather conditions. If necessary the fact
that the weather creates a high risk of hypothermia should be stressed to competitors.

I really cannot see that this needs any review.

It doesn't need review and there are no plans so to do. But the next time we look at the Rules we will consider them all to test if any of them lack clarity for today's ingénue and ingénu.