I need a ruling on a cert. Help, please.

My view on this is: Certify the course if the measurement and map are OK. Enforcement of restrictions isn't our line of work.

I would also recommend prominent display of "runners must stay right of centerline in each direction on [roadname]" on the map. That way, it is clear that SPR was measured staying right of centerline.

Many maps show the location of cones, or show a row of dots and there is an arrow pointing at the dots stating that cones must be placed down the center line to prevent runners crossing the line.

It is up to the RD to deploy the cones and enforce the sepearation, but it is the map maker who has to communicate the need for it forcefully and clearly.

The best way to do that is in LARGE BOLD TYPE in the middle of the cert map.

If the course has restrictions the map should show them clearly, boldly and obviously, so they are still evident on a bad photocopy, which is what most people seem to operate from on race day.

In answer to your question, "Do runners have any such rule or code of conduct about staying one side of the center line?" In short no, not at all.

On the bike section of a triathlon it is against the rules to cross the center line, you can and WILL get disqualified for that. On the other hand runners are frequently all over the road, simply because most races are on the full width of the road. With a restricted course, and unless you cone all the way down, they will naturally use the road curb to curb.

One option is to measure the course using the full road width. Then on race day if the runners stay on the correct side of the road they all just run a little longer, which is not a crime, and if they don't the the course is still not short.

I don't think it's at all inappropriate for the measure to take the RD aside and tell him that should a record have been set on that day the record would probably be invalidated because of the RD's falure to implement the restrictions on the certificate. We have to communicate the certified course, to explain what we mean.

In practice, on race day, you just can't have to many cones. The problem is obtaining them, deploying them, recovering them and storing them.

We use as many cones as I can get a hand on. I am often referred to as cone man. I have had races were we have used U-haul trucks full of 36" DOT road cones.

But on smaller club races held in parks where we don't have to keep cars of the course, or where we are providing runner guidance like staying on the correct side of the center line, we use flying disk cones.
To enforce or encourage runners to stay on the right side of a curve we drop hundreds of 12" day glow flying disk type cones, down the center line packing them close where it curves.
We space them out on stright bits and more dense on inside of curves, putting them every few feet.

The big 12" ones we use on curves cost about $1 each and the 7" we use as mainly as reminders on the straights cost about 40c.

We often alternate colors, day glow orange, day glow yellow, and where it's a U turn or tight curve we sometimes reinforce that with taller cones. We buy the big 12" flying disks in bulk, in boxes of 48.

See this thread Prior thread on the flying disk cones

James - Unless you are working the race and feel comfortable with telling the RD they have to implement the certificate restrictions, I'd stay out of it. As a measurer, we are an independent contractor charged with measuring the course to protocols.

I took an assistant RD with me this weekend on a measuring job. He drove me on the course he wanted to run. When we began the measurement, I showed him what I was doing, where I was going to mark for cones, and why I was riding at a certain point on the road.

Everett M. (I think it was Everett, or maybe Doug L.) and I had a chat once about measuring a course...one of those, "when in doubt, measure unrestricted" conversations.

I will generally use the full road width unless it is a major race with lots of resources (human and material) to enforce restrictions. Even then, there's no guarantee.

NYRR places cones/stanchions on the rec lane line every 50m or so, but last Sunday I saw dozens, perhaps hundreds, of runners going outside those cones (of course, they were doing so no matter which way the road curved, so they were adding distance as well as cutting it off; probably a wash in the end). 2 years ago NYRR ran chute tape the entire length of the course from stanchion to stanchion, in this same race, (Rec Lane Restrictions thread) but they obviously felt this required too much setup time, and now rely on "runner's honor" (is that an oxymoron) and volunteers to enforce the restrictions.

Friends, thanks for the input. My line of thinking mirrors Pete's suggestion to sign off on the cert if the app looks good. And, I would of course, note how & where the runners path is restricted. However, I'm sure all of you can appreciate the potential for abuse of the measured path. Turns out it's 9 miles, not 7, out/back on a winding road. That's a whole lot of potential trouble.

Let's say a record is set and a validation is in order. The validator asks the race director, "Do you have some proof the runners kept the center line on their left going both directions on (Hines Dr)?" The race director will be unable to provide proof that would satisfy records folks- proof like human and/or camera monitors at numerous critical points where runners could shave off distance by crossing the center line.

Add the course is eligible as a Boston qualifier and who's to say the runners didn't cross the center line? And, I'll have to confirm this but I don't think they've had a timing mat at the turnaround point in the past.

None of this is the stated province of the RRTC but...geesh, if we see potential problems and fail to say something, that doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Perhaps there could be an additional RRTC responsibility to flag and make suggestions about potential course abuse and its affect on times & records?

Here's an anecdote that applies. We were measuring a course in downtown Hartford, CT. One of the roads is divided by a center island, not a barrier. The shortest route would require the runners to jump the curb and cross the center island to the opposite side of the road, run on that side for about 50-feet then jump the curb again, cross the center island and return to the other side. We pointed this out to the race director who assured us that there would be cones and monitors at that spot to keep runners from crossing the center island. As runners, we thought that 2 curb jumping events within 50-feet would probably be enough to prevent the 1000+ runners from following the shortest route, especially since there was traffic on the other side of that center island. Did I mention this is a 2-loop course?

Anyway, we measured and obtained certification without the curb jumping section of the shortest route.

We ran the race and on race day there was the certifier (David Reik) standing on the center island. When we ran by he yelled "Where's the cones and monitor?"

The runners didn't cross the island because the effort wasn't worth the saved distance and the shortcut wasn't that obvious unless runners were very focused on the shortest route. However, we learned the "Don't trust the race director" lesson and always measure the shortest route, regardless of the race director's promises.

Pete
Guido Bros.

It would seem to me that there is a difference between running the SPR and cheating. Unless it is made apparent that jumping a curb is necessary to follow the race course, doing so is simply cheating. Of course Pete, I haven't seen this stretch of road you're talking about, and perhaps it isn't so obvious that runners need to stay on one side of the curb.

But I think we have to use our judgement to decide what a reasonable runner would interpret as part of the legal race course. After all, we stay on the road when we measure around urban corners rather than jump up on the sidewalk to measure right next to the building. Everybody knows, at least in the U.S., that the legal route in that situation is to stay on the road.

Based on what the Guidos found, and other anectotes, maybe we should change "SPR" to Shortest Approved Route.

I could take a shortcut on most courses, which means the shortest POSSIBLE route is not following the course as designed. Which somewhat supports what Mark says, about how a course is interpreted by a "reasonable" runner. (We all know that runners are not necessarily reasonable when they are fatigued, myself included.)

When you get down to the absolute meaning of Shortest Possible Route, that is not what we measure, nor what runners run. We measure the Shortest Approved Route, and expect runners to run the approved route.

Is it time to change the term, so there is less room for adverse (incorrect) interpretation?

I don't see a need for change. "Shortest Possible Route" means SPR within the legal boundaries of the course. Those boundaries are defined by the course map and by custom.

Then maybe we should call it the SPRWTLBOTC. I wouldn't change the name either. It would probably just cause more confusion.

The anecdote wasn't intended to push for changing the name or description of the shortest possible route, it was intended to show how we learned to measure the SPR regardless of what the race director claims he/she will do on race day. There are exceptions, of course but it is a good policy generally.

We usually note on our maps that "The course was measured along the shortest possible route within the roadway". This is probably more for us and the race director to support a challenge after the race than for the runners, who rarely carry a course map.

Another anecdote: We measured a flat, fast out-loop-back course using the SPR within the roadway. After a couple years, the police decided that it would be safer to keep the runners on one side of the road for the out and back sections. This makes the course slightly longer. Since I am the race director, I know that about 1-1/2-miles of road are coned. However, I see no need to remeasure the course since it isn't possible to ensure (enforce) that runners stay on the designated side of the cones. Additionally, the police could change their mind and we wouldn't need the cones anymore.

As an added thought provoker, are there any thoughts on disqualifying runners? Will the confrontation lead to a bad impression of the race in the eyes of those who witness it? Since the "Officials" are generally only at the finish line, whose word does the race director rely on?

Guido Bros.

Regarding disqualification, if the course is clearly marked, and pre-race announcements make it perfectly clear what the course is, if you disqualify someone who intentionally cuts a corner or curve, then the runners who were close behind that ran the correct course will be grateful.

That said, you must be sure that the person cut the course. If you have 5 runners support the claim that the course was cut, I think that is sufficient, lacking a course marshal. Care must be taken, as you say, since without a course marshal, it is one runner's word against others. Where it matters, there should be course marshals.