Counting runners at the start.

[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..

[fozzy]

Didn't you just argue against my suggestion to dib at the start on another thread?
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.

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.
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.

[DazTheSlug]

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.).

forgive my ignorance here, as I have never been involved in race organisation

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?

[that_fjell_guy]

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:

[Welsh Harrier]

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.

[Welsh Harrier]

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.

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...

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!

[fozzy]

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.

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.

[fozzy]

Pendle 2002:
Runner collects pre-entry race no, doesn't like look of weather, decides not to start, drives home without telling RO.
Result - non-existent missing runner being looked for in blizzard conditions putting searchers at risk.
Outcome - 6 month name and shame ban from all FRA races.

Whatever we think, believe or assume, somewhere, somehow a runner will find a way to circumvent sensible race requirements.

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).

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.

[DazTheSlug]

Pendle 2002:
Runner collects pre-entry race no, doesn't like look of weather, decides not to start, drives home without telling RO.
Result - non-existent missing runner being looked for in blizzard conditions putting searchers at risk.
Outcome - 6 month name and shame ban from all FRA races.

Whatever we think, believe or assume, somewhere, somehow a runner will find a way to circumvent sensible race requirements.

what happened when the contact & emergency contact numbers of the "missing" runner were phoned (before searchers were sent out)?

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?

[Lefty]

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.