The Debate: The Merits and Fairness of Mixed Punching? Yes vs No?

Is this fair?

Runners with a touch-free card can certainly save time at each control, which is one reason why we expect that competitors will gradually upgrade their SI dibbers/cards to SIAC and some clubs move to using the latest Emit control units However, this is not unique as the newer SI dibbers and Emit ecards were already noticeably faster than early ones and competitors use other technological advances such as fast settling compasses and contact lenses etc. This is recognised in this year’s IOF statement on mixed punching, which announced that no rule change was required for mixed punching provided that contactless cards are available to hire at an event. However, British Orienteering's E&CC have taken a subtlety different view.

Hear what some orienteers think.

Terry Smith, Southampton Orienteering Club & Chair Event Systems Group, says:

“Touch-free punching has gained in popularity, especially for sprint and urban events with relatively short running times, allowing the competition to be more about navigation and running speed than punching prowess. Touch-free punching avoids the need to decelerate into a control, insert a dibber into a hole or touch a control unit before accelerating away from the control. It also offers the opportunity to punch easily at a poorly sited control that may be difficult to access with a contact punching device.

So much for the merits; there are disadvantages but they are mainly for event officials. They include a need to provide backup punches (that may be required anyway), careful consideration of control siting and verification that the control units comply with the IOF specification (a maximum range of 5m is allowed for MTBO vs 0.6m for Foot and Ski-O).

Orienteers who have used either flavour of touch-free punching will surely have noticed the time they save when using touch-free punching. The IOF specification ⁽³⁾ requires that all electronic punching systems register a punch within 150 milliseconds (1/6 of a second). This is the time for the punch to register electronically. Consequently, even if your most up-to-date, super-fast punching device were able to register instantaneously, you could only gain an advantage of a maximum of 150 milliseconds per control over competitors using the slowest punches.

Those of us who have used touch-free punching for many events over several years know that there is a real-time advantage with touch-free punching that is gained from being able to access and to run straight past a control without having to slow down, rather than from the response time of the equipment itself.

It is interesting to compare the statements issued by IOF and British Orienteering on the topic of mixed punching. The IOF statement is written in the context of IOF events for Elite competition. At such events, competitors may well be given electronic punching devices rather than have to use their own and it is extremely unlikely that any Elite competitor would consider disadvantaging themselves by using a contact punch when others use touch-free. The IOF statement says "… contactless punching will save a second or two per control compared with contact punching … " and "… those competitors who wish to use their contact card, perhaps because they feel more confident punching that way, should be allowed to do so …".

The British Orienteering position is somewhat different and recognises the obvious time advantage that touch-free punching offers over contact punching and recommends that all those competing in the same class should use either touch-free or contact punching.

When electronic punching was first introduced I cannot recall any instances of events allowing some competitors to use electronic punching and others to use pin punches (even though backup pin punches might have been provided at controls). The advantage of electronic punching over pin-punching seemed obvious and there was no debate over "mixed" (pin and electronic) punching. I see little difference between that situation and the current debate of mixed (contact and touch-free) punching.

On balance, my personal view is that mixed (contact and touch-free) punching does not provide fair competition.”

Barry Elkington, Octavian Droobers and member of the Events & Competitions Committee, says:

“With regard to fairness, the position of Events and Competitions Committee was documented in the minutes of the November 2016 meeting and this hasn't changed:

• It is recognised that the use of contactless cards provides a significant advantage compared to contact cards so the mixing of the two types in competition could be viewed as fundamentally "unfair".
• The concept of ‘fairness of competition for all’ is paramount above any other considerations regarding the make or type of Ecard in use at an Event.
• If an Event is to have a mix of contact and contactless Ecards for use as designated by the Organiser then provision must be made for competitors who are not contactless Ecard owners or users to hire a contactless Ecard either free or for a modest fee for use on the day or days of the Event.

However, events have effectively overtaken any influence we can have other than the guidance above.

For most competitors, contactless punching will save a second or two per control compared with contact punching. However, this is only when the control can be easily reached. For some controls, e.g. placed in a pit or ditch, the time saved can be significantly more. Hence anyone who wanted to be "competitive" at this year's JK or British Championships had no choice other than to hire or buy a contactless card. Assuming that this continues to be the case then I expect competitors to fall into two categories. Those who take the competition seriously and will buy (or have probably already bought) a SIAC card, and those who just enjoy going out in the forest and will continue to use their existing non-contactless cards.

So yes, it is a contentious subject, but personally, I believe that this is because many people see themselves as having been "forced" to buy these cards.

Moving from old-fashioned control cards to electronic punching put competitors in a similar financial position, however, this was more than outweighed by the benefits to the organiser and planner (and the competitor with the provision of split times), whereas contactless punching changes nothing in this respect.”

Graham Gristwood GB athlete and Forth Valley Orienteers, says:

“There is no doubt that touch-free punching is the future, and hopefully the transition will be fairly quick. There is also no doubt that those with touch-free timing cards gain a small, but measurable, advantage over those without. My feeling is that there is no problem with mixed punching in general - after all, giving competitors the option to purchase a new bit of kit to make them faster is hardly confined to the timing system.”

Stephen Round, South East Lancs. Orienteering Club, says:

“I am in favour of mixed punching as the only way to progress at the pace each competitor wishes. The alternatives are to freeze things at their current state or impose change. All sports face such issues as technology develops.

Contactless punching is of greater benefit at some events than it is at others. It was important for SELOC's recent Sprints Weekend with it's Mass Start final in order to avoid crowding at early controls, so the club made contactless cards available for hire at an affordable rate. Competitors made their own choices with about 75% using contactless, and both groups seemed happy.

Physical punching at speed is a skill, but hardly a fundamental part of our sport and won't be missed when it (eventually) is gone.”

Håkan Blomgren, Chair IOF IT Commission, says:

“In general I’m very positive to the technical development, it’s important for the development of our sport. There have been developments since the first versions of both Emit and Sportident, for example, faster e-cards. It’s important we continue to get the technical development otherwise we will freeze our old way of solving our tasks and problems. Sometimes we get big technological steps (paradigm shifts), for example when electronic punching was introduced some 20 years ago. Maybe the introduction of contactless punching is the next big step?

Whether contactless punching is an acceptable punching technique, or not, is not a technical question. But if the orienteering community finds contactless punching acceptable, I’m positive to convert from traditional electronic punching to contactless electronic punching. If that can be done gradually, it’s much better. Competitors can then choose if and when they want to convert. From a fair play perspective, organisers should have contactless e-cards for renting, for those who don’t have a contactless e-card (the same way organisers today have traditional e-cards for renting).

From an IOF point of view, mixed punching technique will only be applicable at World Ranking Events (WRE), at major IOF Events there will only be one punching technique.”

Andrew Evans, Dartford Orienteering Klubb, says:
“There is a clear advantage, especially in a short race with a lot of controls, for someone using SIAC. However, everyone has the choice of using a SIAC or other card. I see it as little different from other kit/equipment that each runner chooses to use. So I think it is fair to allow mixed punching, is preferable to mandating one or the other type of punching system and preferable to having our head in the sand and not embracing new and improved technology.”

What do you think?

As you can see there are a lot of views and angles on the topic. This article hopefully informs members of the issues and emphasises how difficult, often impossible, it is to take a decision that won’t have some vocal opponents. The Mixed Punching Debate on the member forum is now closed having been open for 4 weeks. Many thanks for all of your feedback, comments and suggestions. However, if you would still like to share your views please email canthony@britishorienteering.org.uk. We will be sharing the forum feedback with the Events and Competition Committee and will be publishing a response shortly.