 Alistair
|
Posted: 19 August 2004, 10:11 AM
http://www.orienteering.org/footo/rules04.pdf, rule 17.2
No special rules for runnning Sprint Orienteering that I've seen. It's just that sprint orienteering is more visible so the above rule is more easily enforced I guess.
|
|
Chris Forne
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 3:24 AM
Thanks Alistair.
Brenda - I'm afraid I can't find anything in the previous discussion that relates to my questions, other than Alistairs comment regarding Sprint-O. Yes I guess I could have spent considerable time trying to find the rules on the IOF website, but thought it might be easier and possibly prove helpful to others if I posted it on MapTalk (most people I talk to don't know what the rules are).
And finally, from my interpretation of rule 17.2 (see previous post by Alistair), most teams should have been disqualified in the 2003 National relays for crossing the 'impassable' lake.
And yes, the lake was marked as 'impassable' according to IOF symbols, see http://www.orienteering.org/publications/isom2000.pdf section 4.3.
So why weren't they disqualified, given at least one of the organising officials must have seen large swarms crossing the lake?
Or were they too unaware of the rules.
This message was edited by Chris Forne on 20 August 2004, 11:55 AM
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 6:27 AM
Here's my interpretation of IOF rule 17.2, which is in the NZOF Rules although that aint so in all cases. "OOB or dangerous areas, forbidden routes, line features that shall not be crossed etc shall be described in the information and marked on the map... Competitors may not enter, follow or cross..." So I think that for there to have been a transgression at the 2003 relays there would have to have been an OOB symbol (black or purple stripes) over the lake AND that fact would need to have been mentioned in the competitor info. I don't think that the black bank lines (or the impassable cliff) FORBID passage, I think they represent the nature of the feature as judged by the mapper, who will usually be conservative knowing that the map is going to be used by a variety of people. This is my interpretation of course, but consider symbol 410. It is called "Vegetation: very difficult to run, impassable". Does that mean it is forbidden to go through dark green? It may be stupid, but hands up those who have never tried it on???
I think a complicating factor is that special IOF rules may have been introduced for sprint-o which specifically forbid crossing certain features, in the interest of safety in urban environments with high walls and hard surfaces etc. I don't know where those rules are, but I'm pretty sure they haven't been incorporated into the NZOF rules. With the rare exception of international events, our events are run under NZOF rules, so additions to the IOF don't automatically apply here. Maybe they should. Organisers if they wished could impose such a rule for their events.
An interesting question: are World Ranking Events run under IOF rules or NZOF rules? We are getting more WREs these days.
Another interesting question: Chris feels that most people he talks to don't know what the rules are. Do we expect that the All Blacks aren't thoroughly aware of the rules of the game?
|
|
jeffg
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 6:34 AM
I think that the IOF does distinguish between things that CAN not and things that MAY not be crossed. The first are things like impassable cliffs, water features with thick black boundaries, etc. My interpretation is that the mapper doesn't think it is possible but good luck to you if you think you can get across the feature.
The latter are the things outlined in rule 17.2 (quoted below) and these all have their own purple overprinted map symbols:
"Out-of-bounds or dangerous areas, forbidden routes, line features that shall not be crossed, etc shall be marked on the map."
Chris, if you check further down the ISOM2000 pdf file you'll find the purple map symbols for each of these things.
So that lake at the 2003 National relays was mapped as uncrossable by the mapper, but was not overprinted as out of bounds or a forbidden route by the planner/controller. So good luck to those who opted to go for it. It was pretty obvious by the positioning of the last control that a route choice was intended.
I think this would all be fairly straight forward, but Alistair's comments about the sprint O walls and frozen lakes make things not as clear cut. One would hope that the frozen lakes would have been overprinted as OOB or dangerous by the planner/controller for that particular event. Also there are new map specifications for sprint maps and perhaps they come with their own symbol descriptions/definitions that include "forbidden to cross" or something similar.
|
|
jeffg
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 6:36 AM
Ummm, thanks Michael.
|
|
mark
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 6:52 AM
And Chris should have been disqualified from the Queens Birthday sprint race in Masterton, because at least one person saw him running through an out of bounds area in the qualification race.
|
|
Neil K
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 8:27 AM
Mark are you calling Chris a cheat?
|
|
mark
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 8:35 AM
yes
|
|
Brenda Boghopper
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 11:43 AM
Good point about rules of the game Michael. Perhaps orienteers could wear an L plate until they passed a test on the rules, and selection would be dependant on having a "full licence".
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 12:00 PM
Rugby has a much higher level of criticism than that of orienteering. Every infringment made by an All Black is on TV, and therefore when they do something wrong, they learn from it. This is not the case in orienteering, so an analogy using rugby is not valid.
Like any sport, there are rules that some at the top level are not aware of. Examples of these for rugby have been highlighted to me, as I read the Rugby Rules handbook thing given to me as I am looking at becoming a Ref. Some interesting things follow:
- that if someone who is close to the sideline actually stands with one foot over the line and one, say 1meter in play and they catch the ball in play with this leg over the out line... then they are theoretically 'out' and so the moment the player touches the ball it is out as he is theoretically 'out' and so he didnt actually take it out, it was whoever kicked it to him.
- if there is a ruck/ maul on the goalline or in the try area, the moment the ball is say on the ground over the line there are absolutely no offsides so you can run around and put the press the ball and it is a valid try.
Now I bet some of those All Blacks only know these rules by actually having a real case scenario of them. Just as Orienteers are only aware of queer rules by having real case scenarios also.
This message was edited by Simon Addison on 20 August 2004, 8:01 PM
|
|
Greg
|
Posted: 20 August 2004, 4:42 PM
Jeff my interpretation brought about mainly by what I've read and seen is that any impassable line on the map is NOT aloud to be crossed. It should be that way so those that do not take the gamble on it being ok (because thats what the map tells them) are not at an unfair advantage. Orienteering shouldn't be about luck on a mappers interpretation weather or not it is possible to cross or go up or down something and therefore if it is mapped as impassable on the map it should be impassable to everyone.
As for Nationals relay, the course setters did not know the answer when questioned about going through the impassable lake and no one protested hence nothing was done about it, if it was I think you would find that probably all of the teams would have been disqualifed and the relay would have been a even bigger waste of time than what it is now.
|
|
Chris Forne
|
Posted: 23 August 2004, 9:44 AM
Well, it would appear the only difference between the NZOF rules and the IOF rules regarding running across line features that shall not be crossed, etc, is that in NZ such features shall be described in the information. Also as Alistair comments, there appears to be no seperate rules regarding sprint orienteering. Therefore one would assume the same rules must apply to both sprint and classic orienteering. So if a compeditor gets disqualified for crossing an 'impassible' wall or cliff in a sprint-O event they should also be disqualified from crossing it in a classic or short distance event.
Basically my point is that even amounst seasoned orienteers, there is some disagreement over the interpretation of these rules. Surely something should be done about this, ie clarify or re-write the rules, so that most competitors know exacly what they are and aren't allowed to to.
Finally in reply to Mark - I don't deny or disagree that I ran out-of-bounds at QB 2003. Although I don't really see what this has got to do with the current discussion. However I would like to say that it was unintentional and I did not realise I had done so until it was too late (and even then I was not sure that I had). Also as it did nothing to improve my time, and seeing that at least one person saw me and did not complain I was not too concerned, especially as it was not a particually big event and I came 7th.
However I will endevour to let an official know if such a thing should occur in the future.
Chris
This message was edited by Chris Forne on 24 August 2004, 2:45 PM
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions