New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

How times have changed
and don't ask where he's got his kit stowed
Attachment 7283

A suitable punishment for such non compliant behaviour is forced pinning of a number to his chest as it is in the photo...brings tears to the eyes!

[Sam Harrison]

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

But what if you're wearing a waterproof? I'd stop racing if I was forced to start pinning race number to GORE-Tex or eVent - unless I'm reimbursed for a new jacket afterwards!

[Lefty]

But what if you're wearing a waterproof? I'd stop racing if I was forced to start pinning race number to GORE-Tex or eVent - unless I'm reimbursed for a new jacket afterwards!

Being a bit pedantic here Sam. What a right minded level headed person would do as I have done countless times as have others is to simply lift the aforementioned expensive piece of attire to allow the Marshall to view the number underneath which is unfolded, and pinned to the chest, obscured only by an essential piece of clothing, simples !

[Lefty]

How times have changed
and don't ask where he's got his kit stowed
Attachment 7283

Oops you caught me out there Richard, practice what you preach and all that !
Skiddaw race early 70s I think, not many rules in those days though and only 30 or so runners so no problem accounting for everyone.

[Witton Park]

and only 30 or so runners so no problem accounting for everyone.

you say that Lefty, but the current paperwork applies equally to the 30 runner events as the 900 runner events, hence Noel has ditched his little race.

[luxinterior]

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....

Whats conflicting about that?

Surely common sense is all that is needed here

[withaY]

perhaps the issue with the 'rules' is not the rules themselves but failure to enforce them by the FRA and RO.

if no one was allowed to start a race without the number in the appropriate postion and anyone who finished a race or arrived at a cp without the number in the appropriate positionwas immediately DNF / DQ then i suspect the issue would be resolved immediately

race numbers are for the competitors safety there not an accessory to be worn as and where a runner sees fit. just because the competitor may see himself as experienced and able the marshall may not have the benifit of such a background and numbers in the same position on every competitor can only support thier role and in doing so make the competition safer for all.

[wynn]

Whats conflicting about that?

Surely common sense is all that is needed here

solicitors don't do common sense only absolutes from the rules, that's why they have to be right.

[Dave_Mole]

if no one was allowed to start a race without the number in the appropriate postion and anyone who finished a race or arrived at a cp without the number in the appropriate positionwas immediately DNF / DQ then i suspect the issue would be resolved immediately

yup.
I ran a half marathon recently: all off road through actively worked woodland. Announcement at the start stated that it was against the rules to wear headphones as it was dangerous to do so. Furthermore, if marshals saw anyone wearing them they would be removed and the owner DQ'd. Nevertheless I saw a lot of people wearing them, some even on the event photographs: no DQs, no words after the event.

I'm sure there's plenty of other stories.....

[Lefty]

solicitors don't do common sense only absolutes from the rules, that's why they have to be right.

And that's why they have been scrutinised by solicitors on behalf of the Fra