Discussion: Peak-2-Peak sprint format
in: Orienteering; General
Mar 31, 2005 3:19 PM
#
I was interested to read that the Peak-2-Peak sprint race used 5 EP units out of the 15 total controls. I'm curious about the race format. Did the other 10 controls have a pin punch, and were runners required to carry a card and punch at those controls? Or did nothing at all need to be done at the non-EP controls?
I'm asking because BAOC will be holding a sprint race on the UC Berkeley campus in a couple of months--a site that has been notorious for stolen and/or vandalized controls in the past. So if we use EP at all we will want to monitor all those controls during the event. It's highly unlikely that we will be able to round up enough volunteers to watch every single control, so I suggested that only a small subset of the controls have an EP unit attached, as was done in the Peak-2-Peak.
Personally I feel that in a high speed sprint race with EP there should be no manual punching required at all, and if not all the controls have EP units attached, runners should just be able to move on to the next control as soon as they have confirmed that the current control is one of the non-EP ones. But others in our club feel that there must be proof that the runners have visited every control, so they want runners to have to manual punch at the non EP controls. I'm looking for arguments to support my case. So I'm hoping to hear that there was no manual punching required at the Peak-2-Peak!
I'm asking because BAOC will be holding a sprint race on the UC Berkeley campus in a couple of months--a site that has been notorious for stolen and/or vandalized controls in the past. So if we use EP at all we will want to monitor all those controls during the event. It's highly unlikely that we will be able to round up enough volunteers to watch every single control, so I suggested that only a small subset of the controls have an EP unit attached, as was done in the Peak-2-Peak.
Personally I feel that in a high speed sprint race with EP there should be no manual punching required at all, and if not all the controls have EP units attached, runners should just be able to move on to the next control as soon as they have confirmed that the current control is one of the non-EP ones. But others in our club feel that there must be proof that the runners have visited every control, so they want runners to have to manual punch at the non EP controls. I'm looking for arguments to support my case. So I'm hoping to hear that there was no manual punching required at the Peak-2-Peak!
Mar 31, 2005 3:38 PM
#
Be gratified - there was no punching except at the 5 EP controls and the finish punch. And as long as you've got a credible threat of manned controls so no one can game the system by guessing the most exposed controls won't have epunches, I can't see how there's any problem with doing it that way. At least, I would expect people to have the integrity to touch the control bag when there's no punch. Though maybe there's an additional argument against doglegs in that.
Mar 31, 2005 3:51 PM
#
Ontario has been using a "hand-touch only" system at checkpoints at small events the last few years (e.g., club training, THOMASS). With the sprint we didn't have the volunteer numbers to risk losing the SI units so we just put out 5. Participants didn't know which CP's were going to have SI at them and we asked them to hand touch the non-SI CP's. It worked well. Can we prove everyone went to all the CP's? Nope,.... but Canadians are an honest bunch.
This discussion thread is closed.