ARDF has a number of problems that keep it from being more popular: cost, complexity, and (sadly) cheating – particularly following. But a few changes to the way the sport is conducted might go a long way toward removing the advantage to be gained by following one’s competitors.
Unless things have changed significantly since 2008, IARU World Championship events are rife with followers. In fact, sometimes the Championships have resembled a herd sport, with groups of a dozen or more migrating about the course. Following wasn’t and still isn’t allowed under the official rules, so participating in it could have resulted in disqualification. But rules against following were almost never enforced – in fact, if they had been, a large minority of competitors might have received DQs at some championships.
The root of the problem isn’t a lack of rules, or even a lack of rules enforcement, but rather a fundamental defect in the design of events. Consider: what if competitors had no way of knowing if other competitors were visiting the same transmitters they are seeking? There would be no point in following since doing so might result in not completing the proper course.
How then to remove the common transmitter assignment without introducing the unfairness of imposing different route requirements on competitors in the same age/gender category? The answer: Let the competitors choose!
An event that includes a greater number of foxes than any competitor is required to locate, would allow each competitor to choose which subset of transmitters to find. Provided that competitors don’t know which subset of transmitters the competition has chosen, they would be ill-advised to follow others who might have chosen other transmitters to find.
The next problems then are when a competitor must commit to their subset selection, and how to record the selection. If competitors were required to select and submit their subset selections shortly after starting a competitive run, say before they locate their first “fox” transmitter, then the advantage of following would be largely obviated. An example of how this might work will help illustrate the concept.
Example Event: Select Four of Six
The course:
- One Start
- One Finish
- Six Foxes: three on two different frequencies, each transmitting for 1 minute on a 3-minute cycle.
The Instructions:
- Each competitor must find four foxes, with the winner decided by the most foxes found and ties settled by shortest time on the course.
- Each competitor must select which four foxes to find, and make that selection before arriving at the first fox
- Each competitor must record their fox choices and submit them to organizers using a private, verifiable, time-stamped method
- Locating foxes that are not among one’s selected subset will not count toward one’s total fox count
Example Benefits
The above rules preserve an emphasis on competitor skill since those who are able to choose and locate the most optimal fox subset in a short period of time will have an advantage. The event is fair because all competitors have exactly the same selection options on the identical course. Following is discouraged because, if the course designers did a good job, there is the likelihood that another competitor has selected a different subset of foxes. The example above provides 15 different combinations of fox selections!
Skilled course designers would need to carefully design such courses so as to prevent the winners from being determined by chance. It must be possible for a sufficiently-skilled competitor to determine the best subset of transmitters to visit by the time the decision point is reached. Only one subset should be best, and no others equally good. Yet, it should not be obvious which is the best subset to choose.
Another tricky part of implementing the above event is the private, verifiable, time-stamped method for competitors to submit their subset selections. This could be implemented using pure technology (e.g., a “personal electronic selection-recording device”), or by the addition of course-selection submission station(s) marked on competitors’ maps (e.g., drop an envelope in one of several boxes shown on the map), or by some other method.
A cleverly-crafted event might even allow for mass starts, or at least for more competitors to start together, thus resolving another headache associated with the status quo: long drawn-out starting sequences that aren’t always fair and can take hours to complete.
And Nadia pointed out that you might have all the foxes on the same frequency, but with 30-second transmit periods, resulting in a 3-minute cycle. Having a shorter cycle isn’t absolutely necessary, but it seems that it would speed things up, since too much time is often spent waiting for the transmitter of interest to come back on the air. But there are also those times, when you just happen to be a 1-minute sprint from the fox, when one is so happy to have a 60-second transmit period.
In the example given (“Select Four of Six”) the complete cycle is 3 minutes. Transmitters are on separate frequencies and transmit simultaneously, rather like with Sprint competition. A practiced ARDFer generally doesn’t require a full 60 seconds to get a good bearing and signal strength reading – so competitors would be able to switch between frequencies and get six bearings in 3 minutes. But this was just an example – the rules could just as well stipulate a full two cycles (6 minutes) or more. Also note that this example does not restrict competitors to any particular area – they would be free to move unrestricted within the boundaries of the map – but must select a fox subset within a set period of time. A skilled ARDFer will generally select an order within the first full 5-minute cycle in Classic ARDF – in this example that ARDFer has the added “freedom” of eliminating two transmitters from the to-find list.
Your alternative approach is interesting too. There are a lot of great ideas out there. But for now, there is no way to advocate for them officially. But we should definitely try them locally. It might start a new wave of interest.
I think competitors should be allowed as much time as they want before deciding since it will take 6 minutes to go through the whole set of transmitters. I think the skill of determining your choice from a small area at the start introduces a good bit of luck when you are choosing between what appears as two similar choices.
Another option might be to have two transmitters about 100m apart on different frequencies for each control location and competitors within a class are given different sets such that the total optimum distance is the same, and the legs are also the same because the controls are in close proximity. Punching the wrong control is a DQ. This format not only reduces the hurd following but also following the group of people rushing into or out of the control as the transmission starts. Arriving at the wrong control lets you know you are close, but the person you followed is now heading for the next control while you are looking and waiting for the correct one to come on. Of course at the end of the event people will complain that the other course was easier or quicker or less climb. )-: