Why carry a water bottle?
Every wednesday I run 21km.. in dry arid conditions.. normally 25 C plus.. humid.. we carry or take on no water... The body is fine for 1.5 hrs with nothing easy... Maybe on longs but even then I think 1.5-2 hrs between rivers or road crossings is fine.. for example in the Peris that would see you round..
Iain - that's you.Originally Posted by IainR
International Ultra Distance athlete.
Some of us are slow plodders
[QUOTE=Witton Park;551556]
I'd welcome some form of ROs awareness day.
Do you mean something whereby race organisers can educate the Fra on rule changes Richard ?
[QUOTE=Lefty;551568]Nice on Lefty
That might be a good idea!
But when I go around i see that some ROs are clearly thrown in a bit at the deep end. We always hear that ignorance is now excuse, but it's a big job taking on a race for the first time.
I've been lucky as I came in to a club where there were plenty of other people who had been involved in hosting T&F, Cross Country and Road races up to National level, so I had people to learn from.
Not all are so lucky.
If you go back to the age group changes, age group breaches were partly down to some ROs thinking that they could allow a parent to "sign a disclaimer" and others down to junior athletes connections deliberately breaching the rules.
So no need for a rule change.
RO awareness and greater penalties against breaches would have done the job.
Just a query: most of us have seen how a Champs RO handles the large numbers by runners picking up their pre-allocated number under letter A-G, etc ~ so would it be permissible in future to have numbers 1-100 for A-G, 101-200 for H-P, 201-300 for Q-Z? Otherwise it's going to be very slow!
To me this would be a reasonable interpretation and application of the new rules (along with starting at #71 rather than #1 as some have said), although it could equally be argued to be a breach of the new rules.
I think this is why the rules shouldn't get too prescriptive and regarding numbers it should be sufficient to state that numbers should be displayed on he front of the torso and should not be folded.
"Should" would be recommendations so again the RO would have discretion to police as they saw fit.
Leave the RO to work out what the number distribution should be as they have to deal with the recording on the ground, where different races, age cats, genders and race formats have to be dealt with.
I recently had 2 Relay events.
In Feb we had juniors and PB Kindly gave us numbers. We had A1 - A199, B1-B199, C1-C199.
We used 101-149 for U12s and 150-199 for U15s that were racing together.
We used 1-99 for the seniors.
In June, we used the surplus numbers from Feb and so had a number range of numbers with some in the 72-99 range and others in the 112+ range. We knew we had 58 teams out there and the recorders at the funnel were well aware of that.
With 12 marshalled points + start/finish officials on a 3.65km route, I think we were sufficiently organised.
Utterly sensible, and seconded. I've been wading through several pages of posts and that sums up my views as an RO. I've no problem with promoting a responsible approach.
Another requirement I'd add is that runners should be able at all times (save in case of a genuine disability) to hear instructions from marshalls and communication from other competitors, particularly requests for assistance. I nearly DQ'ed two runners at my last race for risking their and others' safety by wearing headphones but I hadn't specifically required it and I don't think it's covered specifically on FRA rules.
Regards
Jim
Last edited by jtinnion; 29-07-2013 at 04:43 PM.
Until the last few days I used to think that folded numbers - on shorts or vest - were acceptable, and that running without a vest should be allowed. I now feel that numbers need to be unfolded and on a vest - as clearly they are easier to read - and it should not be a matter of choice as your number might be mistaken for someone else's, putting them potentially at risk. The heat retaining properties of vests are pretty trivial, though being without one feels nice at times.
Jim, taken from draft document -
"The use of GPS type equipment is not an acceptable substitute for traditional navigational aids and their use, along with “walking poles” or sound equipment that restricts hearing, is viewed by the FRA as contrary to the ethos of the sport. Race organisers are, of course, free to ban such equipment from their events."
Go for it!
I thought Poles were banned by UKA? and if banned by UKA surely that's also banned by the FRA?
Not sure on the current status though, I know they were banned my SA.. so presumably by UKA too...which is why they were banned from the WHW race.. I know they are still banned in the WHW race..
Ear phones should be banned.. saftey hazard.. especially on ultra's where you are overtaking people on shorter courses.. especially when they have ruddy Poles.. like in the continental races...
Posting Permissions
