Discussion: OUSA rules proposals public review

The following is a link to a google doc containing the items that rules is proposing be changed beginning in 2014. This includes a proposal for changing the course/class structure for Juniors and a number of other smaller issues. Please review the document and send any comments to rules@orienteeringusa.org and/or your favorite board member. These proposals will be voted on by the board in October.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18g3YXCyYtXF9-p...

I won't comment, but people should check out Item 3.

... but, since I just can't help myself, I guess one of the two doesn't belong: either the Orienteering USA thing or the puppy:



Dammit. We just made a thousand of these things. Will have to be careful for the future!

@T/D - The proposal is strictly for the Foot-O section of the rules, not

for Rogaine rules.

That's a relief. I was worried that we'd have to pick between continuing to allow teams to bring dogs (where venues allow) and using Orienteering USA's sanctioning and insurance.

It applies just for OUSA-sanctioned foot-o, not local events, is that correct?

@JanetT, that is correct. The OUSA Rules are specifically for sanctioned events. Clubs may run their non-sanctioned local events under any rules that they please. The pet issue was really about how pets on the course can be a distraction and negatively affect other's performance at a significant competition.

Are you sure it's her dog?

I do think the pet rule is "overkill", sanctioned or not sanctioned. There are people with horses in parks, hikers with dogs, possibly farm dogs nearby, free bears or deer that could be a distraction.

I think the pet rule is good for sanctioned A-meets. It's an athletic competition, not a family picnic. Leave the pets at home or with a pet-sitter at the assembly area. As someone who has been bitten several times by dogs while running, I would at least like to be able to orienteer without added off-trail canine threats.

For local, recreational orienteering, as long as the rules of the park are followed I see no issue. (I may not *like* it, but I have no argument against it.)

I have had rangers tell me that the most common injuries incurred in their parks are dog bites. We have some club members who sometimes go out with their dogs. These dogs are accustomed to the orienteering scene, go with the flow and are not really a distraction. The problem is the dogs of the general public park users. They can instinctively react to people in bright outfits dashing in and out of the woods. How do we make rules for them? Many parks have leash regulations but these are generally ignored.

Around here there's no formal rule. But common concerns of landowners are anticipated with a standard footnote on the (nationwide) event calendar. "Land Access Responsibilities: No Dogs. No Smoking. Leave only footprints (and gates as you found them)."

I still think that whatever the land owner's rule for pets should apply for all pets. It is an athletic competition, but different from other athletic competitions in that you have also recreational courses, and more so, you are not in an athletic setting. One of the aspects of the sport is nature and environment, and all kind of other distractions in urban sprsints. You would be removing distractions in this country, and thus not be used to the same distractions in other countries. You ban a few competitors' dogs here, and have possibly even strays follow you in other countries. And a competitor's dog is indeed more likely to be used to the running orienteers. I wonder how many other countries have a rule like that for sanctioned events.

You would be removing distractions in this country, and thus not be used to the same distractions in other countries.

Absurd. So we should practice being chased and bitten by dogs in the US just in case it happens somewhere else? Do you think being bitten or chased by a strange dog should be just part of the fun?

I also fail to see how a sanctioned A-meet is "not an athletic setting". Could have fooled me. I guess the registration, results, awards and, you know, the actual races are just a sideshow to the actual event, which is... a nerdfest picnic in a parking lot?

Are there actually people opposed to the reality of this rule, or is it just that some dog owners can't stand the idea of someone telling them their dog isn't welcome?

I am neither a dog owner (currently), have never brought my dog along when I had one. When someone writes their opinion, there is really no need to make assumptions about their writing and descend into an overall insulting tone.

I view this rule merely as over-regulating something. I still believe that the same rules that apply in a park to all other pets should be enough for the event, or that whatever the land owner asks of the organizers should be the rule, which ultimately the organizing club and meet director will set and write up in event information. It should not be imposed by OUSA.

You could make a rule specifically for Elite courses, which is more about the dog possibly interfering with the e-punching process or showing an athlete the way. I think elite runners on elite courses would not take their own dog along as it would be a distraction to their own performance. But there are the recreational and Open courses, as well as all the courses for the other age categories. And we do not yet have the huge numbers of registrants where we just turn away extra registrants because they brought their dog along - unless it stated that in the information package for the event and in the press releases - again up to the organizing club and director and owner, not OUSA.

And yes, it is an athletic setting, but not in terms of a facility or place designated as such on a map or anything, like a soccer field, a track, etc. We bring the athletic setting out into the nature, where we are in some cases without other public, but in many cases with the public and the nature as part of that athletic setting. In most cases it can't just be cordoned off for the day...

Interesting. The proposed rules changes have several significant and potentially controversial sections, including most notably the proposed changes in junior classes and trail-O protest handling. But this thread so far seems to be exclusively about the least significant of the proposed rules changes - whether to allow dogs to accompany A meet competitors.

The competition rules in Finland says that dogs are not allowed on course. In the competition center dogs are allowed only when in leash.

Re: trail-O protest handling

It strikes me as awfully wrong-headed to penalize the competitor for filing a failed protest, when the origin of the problem is that so many trail-o course setters somehow mangle ~10-20% of their controls.

combining the junior classes was discussed previously here:
http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

least significant

Our juniors generally ride in their parents' backpack; I don't know if there has ever been trail o in my state, but I did get a complaint about competitors' and non competitors' loose dogs at a C meet. (Leash required at all venues and overwhelmingly ignored.)

But this thread so far seems to be exclusively about the least significant of the proposed rules changes

I've already sent in my thoughts about the other, supposedly more significant issues to rules@orienteeringusa.org. When it comes to dogs, though, I have a public reputation to uphold. ;-)

IMHO, dogs are fine, but not in an athletic competition. What is orienteering?

Do they allow dogs in a 5K? Why not?

Not sure about 5Ks but our Lab did a 10K today and placed 3rd overall - but we don't take our pooches to orienteering races. There's too much potential to interfere with other people's races, and we already have to divide our attention between the map and our running so we wouldn't be able to ensure that the dog didn't bother anyone.

Some road races have a "no dogs" policy (and/or no strollers, no earphones, etc.), others don't. Generally larger races tend to have the no dogs policy, is my sense. Seems logical, as when there is a very large and packed-in field at the start, dogs would be more of an issue, potentially getting the leash tangled up with other runners. For races with a smaller field which spreads out quickly, dogs would be less of an issue. I've taken a couple of my dogs (only one at a time) on smaller road races and there haven't been any issues. I started at or near the back of the pack and worked my way up only when the field was spread out enough that there wouldn't be any leash entanglement problems.

USA Track and Field specifically bans dogs, strollers etc from sanctioned events and in order to get their insurance. I use them to insure my trail race.

I am in favor of the dog ban, against the junior class change, don not follow or do Trail O much but have heard complaints by people I respect about poor trail O controls and am not a big fan of penalizing some one for protesting.
( an increasing trend, one must now pony up $50 to get a hearing on a traffic ticket, and they usually dismiss the ticket, but keep the $50,)

As andreais points out, a dog ban affects not only competitive orienteers, but recreational orienteers including first-timers. If someone asks the event director, "Can I bring my dog?", it's easy to answer, "It depends on the park rules." This puts the onus back on the dog owner to find out the rules for that location, which in my area usually include leashes and staying on the trails. Having a separate rule for A-meets complicates this.

I'm not arguing against the rule, however, just noting that this is a matter worthy of discussion. Have there been cases of dogs causing problems for competitors at A meets?

I think the class changes for juniors is worthy of a separate thread, but I don't have an opinion on them.

I love dogs. However, if I am lining up to start an A meet, I don't want a dog in the call-up area while I am trying to get myself focussed to race. It's just too much of a potential distraction. An A meet is, first and foremost, a competitive event. I'm all for allowing recreational orienteers/map-hikers whatever to participate, but not if they detract from the actual competitive event.

Have there been cases of dogs causing problems for competitors at A meets?
Rules was asked to look at this by a competitor. In the course of discussion within the rules committee examples were given of situations in which someone had been disturbed by another competitor's dog on the course. It's not just a hypothetical.

And I'm one of those people. At an A-meet one time, a competitor on my course with a similar start time, and who was about my speed, brought his two dogs along. It was one of the biggest pains in the ass I've ever experienced while orienteering. Miscellaneous dogs in a park are something that you might encounter off and on, but these dogs were being led along my route and were constantly getting underfoot.

I'm all for allowing recreational orienteers/map-hikers whatever to participate, but not if they detract from the actual competitive event.

I think this hits part of the underlying issue here. I'm also all for map-hikers participating in orienteering...in general. But maybe we need to stop trying to cater every event to all parties. Obviously a discussion for a separate thread/universe. ;-)

Arguing over whether dogs are allowed or not, while more material issues remain outstanding, seems quite misguided (and that is a colossal understatement).

It may seem like bikeshedding, but really, this is the only one of the proposals that may directly affect most USian APers. The junior class changes? It's not like we're getting rid of juniors. Trail-O? Nope, not likely to affect me. The rest don't seem controversial. Dogs on A-meet courses? I can't think of many things more horrifying (and that's only slightly hyperbolic). I think it hints at this issue of not treating orienteering competitions as actual competitions.

This should be simple.

A-Meets are athletic competitions sanctioned by the highest governing body in the country.

Find me another athletic competition sanctioned by a national governing body that allows animals (excluding competitions specifically requiring animals, natch, like equestrian, rodeo, and dogsledding).

Also, if dogs are allowed, maybe I'll just hook up an Alaskan Malamute to a WeGo Team Link, and it'll pull me around a course.

For those who feel that orienteering isn't an athletic competition, you're entitled to that opinion. And I'll encourage you to attend one of the hundreds of local, non-sanctioned, events each year for your version of orienteering.

Re: Trail-O

Are protests made before or after the scores are announced and correct answers revealed?

I ask because only the protestor gets penalized, and not everyone else. If protests are made post-results announcement, then I can see an opportunity for someone high up in the results asking some schmuck like me to protest. If I get penalized, no big deal, and the good guys don't lose any points.

On the trail-O question, is the rationale for the penalty to discourage people from protesting every control they got wrong in the hopes that some will be thrown out?

I also want to make sure I understand the complaint/penalty process. Reading the rules, it sounds like a protest is what happens if you disagree with the result of a complaint, and that throwing out a control is a possible outcome stemming from a complaint. So is the idea that I could still complain to the organizer about any controls that I thought were improper (and possibly get some thrown out) without risk of a penalty, and it is only if I disagree with the organizer and file a protest that I risk a penalty should the jury deny the protest?

In principle, that seems reasonable because I have the chance of a second opinion, and would only pursue a protest - risking a penalty - if I'm quite certain of my position. But it seems like it would also be easy for organizers to simply deny all complaints, thus forcing a protest - and I agree with earlier comments that competitors should not be discouraged from challenging the correctness of a control when it is not that uncommon for controls to be incorrect.

Many proposed changes to the Rules of Competition have been rejected, based on the principle that the issue should be left to event organizers. The dog proposal fits into this category.

If some official recognition of the issue is deemed necessary, add it to the guidelines.

They allow dogs in Parkrun, which is a UK based weekly 5k run. But to be honest they can be a pain in the arse especially at the start if there's 100s of competitors and someone has a dog on a lead coming through.

On of the key issues we have in the UK is convicning people we are a serious competitive sport rather than a ramble in the countryside. Not sure letting people run with dogs would help in that respect.

My local 5k run is potentially losing access to their venue because the athletes keep running into recreational dogs, cursing, and screaming at the dog owners.

Indeed, you can be right or you can accomplish what you want. Take your pick.

Regarding the Junior proposal ... the chart shows juniors (17-20) running Blue (for the boys) and Red (for the girls) for events of the SML format.

I can see Blue/Red being a reasonable option for Sprint and Middle, but should 17 year olds be running Blue/Red on IOF Long courses? If Eric Bone is running 90-100 minutes, how long is a typical 17 year old going to be out there? To me, seems reasonable to put 17-20 on Blue/Red for S/M, but not for L.

Well, the other side of it is, the 17-year-old is going to qualify for a JWOC and face a 12 to 14 km course that's nothing like he's ever encountered (and an even higher threshold for girls).

That's a good point. We've got to balance on the one hand strongly encouraging people (of all ages) to enter a course that they are prepared to handle .vs. on the other hand offering sufficient preparation for athletes preparing for international competition.

If the 17 (or 25) year old is not ready for blue then they need to be encouraged to enter red or green or whatever and build up their skills.

Brian, I see that in Canada they have 17-20 age categories which is one major thrust of this proposal. It's not exactly clear to me from reading the OCAN Guidelines but it looks like the middle and long are more along the lines of a US red for boys and green for girls. Is that an accurate interpretation?

Orienteering Canada Course and Category Guidelines

Hi Mitch, I think that is a fair interpretation of our course structure:
M17-20 on "red" and W17-20 on "green" for Middle and Long
M17-20 on "blue" and W17-20 on "red" for Sprint
There have been some informal discussions suggesting moving M17-20 and W17-20 to "blue" and "red" for Middle, but nothing definite. Certainly no suggestion of moving 17-20 to "blue"/"red" for Long however.

Do all US 17-20 year old orienteers go to JWOC? It seems to me that course structure should aim for the middle of the demographic, not the top few. If some 17-20 year olds want to "race up" onto a Blue/Red Long course to get suitable training for JWOC*, great, but I'm not sure one should force all 17-20 year olds to do so.

* Ps. One of the great things is that the US has a coach who can actually tell kids to do so if he thinks it will benefit their training and preparation for JWOC.

If the 17 (or 25) year old is not ready for blue

But they will qualify for JWOC, and will want to run the Long. So, something has to be done about domestic competition that is a change from not requiring JWOC hopefuls to run in a JWOC-length course, ever.

Some of the recent claims have been slightly hyperbolic concerning course lengths. The JWOC men's long course over the past six years has been 9.5 - 11.5 km in length, not 12-14 km. The women's long course has been 5.7-7.3 km. I haven't compiled detailed statistics, but the 2012 US Champs Long, 2013 Champs, and 2012 North Americans blue courses were 11.3, 13.1, and 14.4 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_World_Orientee...

While the proposal makes a note of the two contrasting goals, I do not understand why M17-20 would run blue for SML and green for classic length courses; the same follows for F-17-20 with SML red and brown classic. The difference in length in the middle and sprint is negligible compared with the length in the long courses. For a competent junior, a brown classic course is very nearly a middle distance race.

If someone asks the event director, "Can I bring my dog?", it's easy to answer, "It depends on the park rules." This puts the onus back on the dog owner to find out the rules for that location, which in my area usually include leashes and staying on the trails. Having a separate rule for A-meets complicates this.

If someone asks the event director, "Can I bring my dog?", it's easy to answer "NO".

No confusion. No need to separate A meets. Must have more rules about dogs in National Parks in Western Australia than the US... What is hard about leaving a pet at home when going for a run in the forest?

As someone who has been bitten by a dog while running, only to be comforted by the owner saying "Gee, he's never done that before- he's usually really friendly" (didn't remove the holes in my shin and calf, funnily enough) I'm probably a bit biased though.

I was a little bored, so I compiled statistics on course lengths from US A-meets from 2012-2013. I used all meets for which I was able to find length data. The JWOC course length data is from the wikipedia page, with data for the past six years.

<

Course	Average length (km)	Stdev length (km)
Blue Long (6 meets)	12.7	1.7
Red Long (6)	9.6	1.5
Green Long (6)	6.8	0.9
Blue Classic (6)	10.3	1.1
Red Classic (6)	7.6	1.0
Green Classic (6)	5.6	0.3
JWOC Men	10.6	0.8
JWOC Women	7.0	0.8

The JWOC Women's long course is almost exactly the same length as the Green Long Course at A-meets (though I have no objective measure of duration, like gnarliness) and only slightly shorter than the Red Classic. The JWOC Men's long is very nearly the Blue Classic and is about 2 km shorter than the Blue Long.

So, in other words, neither Red Classic nor Red Long are as long as JWOC Men's Long.

That's right, on average. Although something like 20% of the time that will be wrong. And if our juniors were used to running that extra 1000m, dangit, they would be right up there on the podium.

I think the tail is wagging the dog.

The Red long lengths since the start of 2012 for which I found data were: 8.0, 8.6, 9.1, 9.7, 9.9 and 12.2 km. Three of those six fall within the range of JWOC course lengths. In contrast, the blue course lengths were 10.1 - 14.4, and were over 1 km outside of the JWOC ranges in 4/6 instances. This is N of 6, which is of course massively oversimplified.

I think merging M/F18 with M/F20 is an excellent idea that will deepen the Junior field and enable direct competition of people bound for JWOC. However, this warrants a more conservative approach to course lengths. Consider that M/F16 run Orange courses. I heartily agree that it is up to the Junior and their coach to decide the appropriate course, but some juniors will run the posted class simply because they think that's what they should. Are you suggesting it's appropriate for Juniors to jump from Orange to a 12.7 km course?

In my view, it is appropriate for M18/20 to run Red SML and Red Classic courses, and for F18/20 to run Green Classic and Long. The Red long course is (on average) 1 km shorter than the JWOC long, but it's preferable that the JWOC and non-JWOC bound juniors run 1 km too short than kill themselves running 2 km too long. I encourage JWOC trials setters to make the long course length more appropriate. Serious juniors training for JWOC can run the Blue Classic courses as suitable training, though 2 de facto long courses on consecutive days might be ill-advised.

It should also be noted that the Red Long course is unambiguously much longer than the women's JWOC long course. Green Long is essentially perfect.

I'm not going to repeat the exercise of compiling data, but I would also point out that Blue Middle is typically longer than the ~4.4 km JWOC Men's Middle, and Red Middle is longer than the ~3.7 km JWOC Women's Middle. Red is the most appropriate set of lengths for M17-20, and Green for F17-20.

There's a 16yo in my club who post-ran the WOC MQ this year in about 36 minutes. You have to work with the people you have. Going from Orange to Blue is one way to lose them.

One thing to remember is that the spirit of the disciplines should be retained. There's a big difference between sprinting for 14 minutes and 'sprinting' for 18 minutes.

You can achieve a lot more with training than with a JWOC-standard A-meet, and luckily for the US, training is happening.

Hear hear. Locally we occasionally have a similar discussion about course lengths not being appropriate for the most recent shining junior shooting star - but effective and regular training would solve all the perceived concerns.

hear hear ditto

Red is the most appropriate set of lengths for M17-20, and Green for F17-20

Excellent, that's still better than the status quo. I'm with you that those who are used to running Orange and aren't used to training probably shouldn't be at the JWOC, but that's not the current policy.

So go fix the policy. How exactly is a change in course/class structure going to alter the policy?

This directive is best addressed to the Junior Team leadership.

The 20-knot wind limit could be raised.

@T/D: To exactly which Junior Team "policy" were your referring?

With regard to trail-O, a complaint alerts the course setter and event director of a problem. There can be a discussion and often after this discussion controls have been removed from the scoring. At the last US Champs, I had a beaver house that must have been a condominium, it was 30 meters by 10 meters but it was marked with a symbol that was for a point feature. Rules dictate that a point feature could not have an "area" in the clue. Although I liked the beaver house control (and most people got it correct), the complaint was valid and it was thrown out. Protests are at a different level, above a "discussion" of the control. And as was suggested earlier, it benefits a competitor from filing a protest on every control they got wrong. If one is upheld, they gain. At the same time, protests for a large number of controls is a problem for the jury. At the past US Champs, there were a number of controls that were discussed at the "complaint" level and those were dealt with to everyone's satisfaction. None of the protested controls were thrown out because the jury upheld the validity of the controls although 4 controls were protested.

I was referring to the policy of sending 6M + 6W regardless of their achievement level.

Rules 1) Junior Courses:
I don't think modifying course structure to allow junior training at A events should be a consideration. I do agree that merging the 18 & 20 categories would be good thing and encourage more competition and therefor camaraderie among juniors.
So course length will depend on what is being emphasized: runners vs recreational competitors. Runners will be able to do the distance so I say Red for Men and Green for women (all events). If recreational, then distance is a problem and go with the shorter courses of Green for Men and Brown for Women. This is where the discussion should be, (and documented if it already occurred).

Rule 2) In terms of trail O: Let me state right up front that I am not in favor trail-O as an activity in any shape or form. Having said that, I don't think penalizing people for submitting a protest is the way to go. If there are too many protest then fix the main problem by eliminating items causing people to complain/protest. When that occurs, then maybe Trail-O will have increased respectability and people will be more inclined to believe they were in error rather than the meet officials.
I am not convinced it is a good idea to rely on the complaint (not protest) process as the primary means for correcting issues. Since complaints go to the meet officials, they already had a chance leading up to the event to prevent them and obviously think they did everything correctly so aren't likely to change.
If the decision is made to penalize a person for a denied protest, then there should be a penalty to the meet organizers/club for an upheld protest. That way there is some incentive to prevent things to begin with.


3) rule 3: Dogs.
I am in favor of no pets on the course at A events. Remove a potentially unfair factor that really shouldn't be an issue. I have had minor problems at an A Event with a competitors dog. The bigger pet problem is usually at local events.

6) Long format Scale: I think I know why this is being done. However, I am personally concerned about the side effects of this. Maps should be made with a particular scale in mind. 1,15,000 scale penalizes those with less than ideal eyesight. It also makes it difficult to correctly portray technical areas within a map that may be suitable for a middle distance. This mean clubs have to decide what scale based on the event, and the terrain. The end result:
a) clubs will have to spend a lot more time/money making two different scale of maps.
b) clubs will print 1:10,000 maps at a 1:15,000 scale to fulfill this rule, or print 1:15,000 at a 1:10,000 scale. Neither of which is a good thing as the drafting will be wrong.
c) Clubs will use 1,15,000 maps for all the Red courses since they are required for F21. This will penalize the older red participants with worse eyesight.

You're not a lawyer are you Ted?

Around here, meet officials and competitors are the same people, highly conscious of the need to get it right, and deeply disappointed when a problem gets through the various checks. The protest procedure while needed in some cases is superfluous for an "open-and-shut" error, and organisers I know welcome the chance to act on a complaint.

Addition: I apologise and withdraw Ted. I now see your comments were made in the context of Trail-O. And I have no experience with that.

Per the latest update on OUSA BoardNet, all revisions to Junior classes and categories have been withdrawn.

Anyone care to share why? Is this because people who aren't juniors or parents of juniors were complaining [above]? Is this withdrawn as in dropped, or withdrawn as in going to fine-tune and resubmit?

I believe the proposal was withdrawn not because it is being dropped by those who proposed it, but because they think they need to reconsider how it it presented within a greater framework of changes going forward.

@ed: You are correct, sir!

The "official" announcement / explanation can be found on this thread...