Wouldn’t it easier to have no marshals at all on the course, just count ‘em out and count ‘em in and rely on the honesty of the racers to not short cut the course. Sure you would have to rely on runners visiting all the check pints but isn’t that already the case with unmanned checkpoints? Or alternatively have marshals to ensure no cheating and not for safety - Triathlons have draft busters on the bike for example.
Slightly different approach maybe… .. . .
Marshalls should be in place first and foremost for runner safety.
What rolls can they realistically fulfil to ensure that the runners are safe without having an influence on the results as after all it is a race.
eg. If someone (as I've seen) passes a CP and starts heading in the wrong direction should a marshall get involved, perhaps saving a lost athlete, or should they just let them proceed as route choice is clearly the athlete's decision unless compulsory flagged.
I can't see that I would have a need to ask any marshalls on my course to record numbers but I do have perhaps more marshalls per km than almost any other fell race.
I'd best stop, because the potential roll of a marshall is so varied, and the best use of those marshalls should be down to the RO and "the Roll of the Race Marshall" probably could warrant a thread of it's own.
I marshalled at the trig point on the Auld Lang Syne the other year. The course basically does a 300 degree turn around it so I put tiger tape in a loop to guide the runners, there was a wide funnel in as well so that I didn't miss anyone. Some runners (and not those in isolated groups) jumped over the tape and would have carried straight on towards Ponden Kirk if I hadn't shouted at them, in one case several times.
I can't remember if the runners were local or not but surely some common sense has to prevail: tiger tape is commonly used in both fell and road races to mark out parts of a course; all the other runners that you were with seem to have disappeared.
As a marshal, should I have influenced the results? Maybe, maybe not but I'd rather do that than then have to head out on a search several hours later.
That's probably something to sort out between you and Dave, but I'd imagine in that instance that you are better to do that, especially as it's a marked section of the route as well.Originally Posted by Bob
Whatever the reality of real world marshalling, RO are completely screwed by such as this.
"Must use their (best endeavours) reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long
/Medium A and Long B races by identifying the number and location of marshals critical to runner
safety to ensure that each runner can be checked around the course in such a manner that if a
runner becomes overdue at a critical point the fact is communicated quickly to race organiser.
Sure there are a lot of other things that need attention in the rules immediately - like adding "what to do at checkpoints" in instructions for runners, and putting "excessive" rather than "forseeable" risks in the place of the obvious and inevitable risks due to runner crowding in early stages. Hypothermia needs an action such as "runners must study the risks of hypothermia" rather than the disembodied statement.
But for as long as unrealistic expectations as the above is left in the rules what is the point of fiddling whilst rome burns?
Who can tell me a single instance of when a search was instigated for a runner before the end of a race, that lead to finding an immobile runner in a life threatening situation? S
I know it is nice to say you can do it to coroners and the like with a liberal spray of "Musts". But some poor sod of an RO has to make it happen, or find it echoed back by the coroner when they fail as they invariably will, and recently did.
Pete Bland will love the above - how will he ever get enough marshalls to even attempt it let alone succeed?
So the FRA should have refused his application since they know he is not compliant with that!
BTW Whoever wrote that has no business drafting documents considering the legal significance of best endeavours is seriously dangerous...
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 14-11-2013 at 04:25 PM.
And as it's also part of this thread it's being discussed again here
And if you come to one of our races you will be given a waterproof number, you will be asked to wear that self same number Unobscured, Unfolded and your chest for obvious reasons previously stayed, simples
I raised the point before the meeting that "Must not allow equipment that restricts hearing" is open to misinterpretation when taken with "Must have waterproofs with hood and hat". Not a big point I know, but enough to allow the what if scenario if it's bad weather and someone cannot hear instruction or the car that's speeding down the country road......
the response was:
"I note your comment" "As there is no amendment for tomorrow on that item I presume it will stand"
So the conflicting statements are still in the rules....
How times have changed
and don't ask where he's got his kit stowed
Lefty.jpg
Last edited by Witton Park; 14-11-2013 at 05:09 PM.
And that is the right way round.
The rules should say "identify" - the RO in this case says "number on chest"
There is a contradiction in the rules which DEMANDS waterproof numbers in 8.1 , but later allows other systems ... include .... “Tyvek” wristbands in 10.2 . So which is it - either/or or is the tyvek only as a duplicate backup system?
It needs precision and clarity.
Reality is the rules should say "identify" and lefty is then free to choose "waterproof numbers" as his way of doing that as an RO, as one of a number of options in "Guidance" notes to avoid prescribing - and in Leftys "runner instructions" it should say only on chest, and not folded...etc etc.. if that is what he deems appropriate.
The "how" has no place in the rules only the "what" and "what to consider".
Guidance explains some options.
The RO race documents detail "how"
So if its pissing with rain and I'm wearing my waterproof top, presumably I can pin my race number to my shorts so that its unobscured?
Posting Permissions
