New safety rules

[LissaJous]

Well, as a race organiser, I don't plan to DQ people who run topless. Nor do I plan to throw away all of last year's numbers 78 to 400 (or whatever was left over).

I can see the argument for the latter one, but will take this as guidance not mandatory (in the letter of the law). Having said that, I did get confused on my last C&F relay as to the number of people in the race. So maybe I'll start at a number ending in "1" rather than starting where last year's race left off.

I'm a bit bemused by the number on legs argument. I think it's helpful, especially in races with potentially nasty conditions, to be able to put on and take off extra layers without obscuring your race number. Indeed I'm more likely to put a number on my leggings in the (very few) cold races I do, for that reason.

But then if anything did go wrong involving mis-counted runners, you would straight-forwardly be found negligent (and possibly not covered by insurance?). The same could also apply if failing to DQ runners with numbers on leggings, which I agree seems a bit silly when everyone might be wearing a cag. (In your example you only need to replace numbers 1-100).

I am impressed by how committed to making fell running better the committee must be. To prepare a 14-page draft document and put it on the forums is akin to standing in the stocks with us all holding wet sponges. After my initial points above, I'd like to add that almost all of the 14 pages (and all the bits that are mandatory) seem to make perfect sense, and I appreciate you're working with my best interests at heart.

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

[IainR]

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

I did a race in Poland.. and all we had to carry was a mobile phone..

Which I did.. but few others carried anything.. or maybe they had the cheapest lightest one..

I can understand asking for a phone in addition to other items.. but a phone over a jacket seems strange..

[noel]

But then if anything did go wrong involving mis-counted runners, you would straight-forwardly be found negligent (and possibly not covered by insurance?).

Yes, that's the frustrating bit. I bought a job lot of race numbers earlier this year. My races typically get about 50 runners. I don't want to throw away £30 worth of race numbers over something that seems to be a bit of overkill (sorry committee). However, I acknowledge the point and the potential dangers this guidance is attempting to avoid. I will therefore take steps to ensure the number of runners is clear to the various people involved in organising any races I'm in charge of.

[IainR]

Most of the 14 pages is the old document, but certainly thanks are due to the committee who have worked all year to keep our sport alive, and so we don't all end up having to carry a torch! (One of the more outlandish queries I believe they had to answer).

Whilst I agree thanks are due.. fell running is not under threat..

Fell racing maybe.. at times the two get confused as one.. I'm sounding like Stolly now.. :-) But do think at times fell running and fell racing are needlessly combined.

But then again like the runners running routes on race day.. I can't see what RO\'s can do if its open land.. its poor behaviour and strange.. especially to go near the finishing funnel.

And we are already seeing races held outside of the FRA, and very informal club races.

Its not to say I don't think the FRA do good, the nav courses are a superb initiative, so is the junior set up.

[DazTheSlug]

are we seriously saying that if you issue numbers 32 to 132 and have 14 uncollected numbers that you don't know you have 87 runners?
anyone unable to do such simple maths shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects, let alone organise a fell race

in any case, why does it matter how many runners are in the race?
unless you're going to "bulk count" them (which is intrinsically unreliable/dangerous)

you need a list of the numbers in the race and you need to check them off

[OB1]

Yes, that's the frustrating bit. I bought a job lot of race numbers earlier this year. My races typically get about 50 runners. I don't want to throw away £30 worth of race numbers over something that seems to be a bit of overkill (sorry committee). However, I acknowledge the point and the potential dangers this guidance is attempting to avoid. I will therefore take steps to ensure the number of runners is clear to the various people involved in organising any races I'm in charge of.

With the C&F down-up I think you are lucky that there isn't (yet) a rule specifying that the batons have to all be a regular UKA size and shape, and any sharp pointy bits sawn off. Some of them could be seen to be introducing hazards and dangers to the course, especially if (and it could happen) there were to be a pile up at the start.:wink:

[noel]

With the C&F down-up I think you are lucky that there isn't (yet) a rule specifying that the batons have to all be a regular UKA size and shape, and any sharp pointy bits sawn off. Some of them could be seen to be introducing hazards and dangers to the course, especially if (and it could happen) there were to be a pile up at the start.:wink:

Good point - I will lobby the committee to add a list of acceptable seasonal batons.

[fozzy]

The comments made about issuing of numbers are sensible.

It does seem silly to insist that all races must start with #1 and got to #x. Simply because it is inevitably going to be cheaper for a RO to buy a bulk of, say, numbers from 1-600, and then use them over a number of years.

I do take the point that numbers be should be contiguous though - perhaps the "rules" should be reworded to state this - thus an RO is free to use up numbers say, from 1-50 in year 1, then 50-107 the next year and then 108-128 the next year etc.

Of course, using non-contiguous numbers would cause confusion, and this should be taken into account (i.e. using nos 3, 4, 7, 23 then 50-100 simply because those first four hadn't been used for some reason the year before).

I also cannot see the problem with something like ALS having "personalised" numbers - they can simply have a number associated with them from 501-528 or whatever - but I would class ALS as a special case, as it has become a tradition that should be respected and kept, and if other races wanted to do something similar, then they would need seek guidance from the FRA and explain why it was necessary for their race, and then on agreement it could be done.

With relays, by the way, I would also advocate going to a system of 1A, 1B, 1C etc for each leg runners (I know some relays already do this, but I think all should) - we do it for Golden Acre Relay and having marshalled and recorded results for this, it's much clearer when you know what leg each runner is doing - for example you are not confused by runners wearing the same number, but who are just warming up.

Also a quick point re: topless - I can see the point of this to a certain extent. I don't particularly like to see topless runners. I have no problem in saying that runners should have to wear a vest or t-shirt or similar, and have to wear their number on their chest/front. If I were RO of a race, I wouldn't necessarily DQ someone for a first "offence" but I might have a quiet word and say that I'd prefer it if they followed these rules. I might DQ someone who didn't show their number to a marshal at a CP though - I've done it myself where I've just shouted my number to them, and I know it's poor form - in future, I will be making sure that my number is shown to all recording marshals - it only takes 2 seconds to lift up your jacket to make it visible.

[Mike T]

" I don't particularly like to see topless runners. "

Why not?

[LissaJous]

T I might DQ someone who didn't show their number to a marshal at a CP though - I've done it myself where I've just shouted my number to them, and I know it's poor form - in future, I will be making sure that my number is shown to all recording marshals - it only takes 2 seconds to lift up your jacket to make it visible.

Specifically mentioned in the new rules that you wouldn't have to show numbers in poor weather, and can shout number, with confirmation by the marshal. The exact procedure would be whatever the RO explains at the start.