Mandatory Trail/Hill shoes
| Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Paul Joyce | Feb 11 2018, 10:04pm | This is mainly a point for debate rather than letter of the law, but I'd be interested in general viewpoints... I'm RD'ing Annagh Hill, and having recently ran the (very muddy) course and I can see that road shoes will be lethal and so made a call to ban them... and then realise I've never run an IMRA race where road shoes are anything but lethal. Should Trail/Hill shoes be mandatory for IMRA races? Personally I despise the whole restricting H&S ethos (while recognising its value at times), but when everyone is mandated to take a hooded jacket that will be useless 99% of the time... why are hill-grip shoes not mandated when they will be useful 100% of the time? Like I said I have no real desire to impose restrictions (and the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned), but trumping that inclusion as RD I'd prefer to put on a challenging course knowing people will be suitably attired and can enjoy the route without unnecessary spills. Just curious about general viewpoints. |
| Robbie Williams | Feb 11 2018, 10:19pm | It would be at the race Directors discretion really. Some courses like fire road courses have no probs with Ross shoes but in the case of the harder muddier courses it's a must. And you are right, try telling a newbie that they cannot run their first race unless they splash out €100 on trail runners.. Race by race evaluations I'd say |
| Rene Borg | Feb 11 2018, 10:21pm | My two cents Paul: there are many conditions where trail running shoes are not necessary. If we take for context that the current record on the classical Carrauntoohil route was set in road racing shoes and that I know from experience many among the top field who have used road racing shoes to good effect on certain courses. Generally, whether these shoes can work or not depend simply on how wet conditions are, which could put Race directors in the unfortunate situation of having to judge whether the 'weather is bad enough to disqualify road shoes'. Next comes the muddy terrain (no pun intended) of having to judge what constitutes a trail shoe and what not (an increasingly complex issue only likely to get more confusing as shoe choices continue to expand). My personal view would be to leave this one down to personal liberty - i.e. let people learn from their own mistakes while providing guidelines. so while I am not personally in favour of such a rule (preferring to leave people the liberty to make their own mistakes in this case). |
| Paul Smyth | Feb 12 2018, 12:22am | I have to say I'm with Rene on this. At what point do we draw the line in protecting people from themselves. Not trying to be funny but it's a slippery slope if you start mandating what type of gear people can use in a hill-race. Define 'road shoes' for example. Twenty years ago it would have been easy. Today not so much. Generally, people have a built in survival instinct, and if someone is foolish enough to wear footwear with insufficient grip, then the first time they try descending anything even slightly steep they are immediately going to lose traction and will be forced to slow down considerably. Even proper hill-running shoes are no guarantee of good traction. Last years Mourne Skyline featured some very steep descents on very, very slippery grass. Everyone, regardless of footwear, was slipping and falling. Nothing short of spikes would have made any difference. How will you enforce it? Are you going to inspect everyone's shoes before they start? Once you go down this road where do you stop? Do we start inspecting people's jackets to determine if they are heavy enough, waterproof enough? Should we insist they have a hood? Taped seams? Do we count the studs on people's shoes and measure their depth? I've seen runners wearing shoes that were literally held together with tape and yet they successfully got around a hill-race. Most people who have been hill-running for any length of time know what they personally, can and cannot, get away with, in terms of gear for a race and such people, if they want to do well, can usually be relied on to make reasonable choices. The issue is more with beginners or other newcomers to our sport. I think good general advice on the website and specific instructions for a race such as "This route features steep, mucky and slippery descents and anyone using shoes without suitable grip will be at a severe disadvantage" should cover it. I did Annagh Hill last year in wet conditions and yes it's steep and mucky but honestly, it's not that bad. Hill-running is after all supposed to be an adventure sport. |
| Mick Hanney | Feb 12 2018, 7:52am | Strong advice on the event page will have most people compliant anyway apart from the few that simply follow events via Facebook. But an RD should have discretion. It is easy enough to recognize footwear with little or no grip. . Chances are with an event such as Annagh you might only get a couple wearing inappropriate runners. A word of advice to go carefully might be enough but hopefully they’ll have heeded the advice on the event page. Interestingly ground conditions in Mullaghmeen yesterday were probably the slippiest I’d seen in an IMRA race.,Little grip even with INOV-8s. Falls had soft landings for the most part. |
| Warren Swords | Feb 12 2018, 10:49am | No need for mandatory trail shoes or a ban on road shoes. A simple line on course conditions will suffice. "It's muddy. Trail shoes strongly recommended." It's mountain running. All of us expect challenging conditions. Pretty sure most RDs put on a course with no regard whatsoever that some people might be in road shoes. |
| Stuart Scott | Feb 12 2018, 11:16am | While I understand the reasons behind this, I would be strongly against such a rule nor allowing RDs discretion in such matters. Races have been run for decades without major issue and like Paul S says, runners should have enough common sense to slow down where they need to. Ironically, allowing RDs discretion would increase the responsibility on them and risk them being held accountable if someone did slip and fall. As an extreme example, I did several races some years ago in a pair of Mudclaws with perfectly acceptable grip. The only issue was that one of the soles wasn't attached anywhere to the shoe. So instead I just tied it on using the laces and stopped every few k to tighten them. And I got on grand! Putting such a rule in place, even for the odd race, would put up huge barriers to entry for newcomers. Common sense should prevail on all sides! |
| Gordon Place | Feb 12 2018, 11:25am | You might be on to something there Stuart, you could've swapped on a road sole if the going got good |
| Stuart Scott | Feb 12 2018, 11:26am | Actually that's a great idea Gordon, I should patent it! |
| James H Cahill | Feb 12 2018, 12:08pm | I am in agreement with Stuart on this and would be against giving RD's discretion to manadate footwear. As Stuart highlights this then creates an issue of accountability for the RD and exposes them to more accountability rather than less. Wear anything you want (with the warning that its slippy, fell / trail runners are recommended and you will be at a disadvantage wearing less grippy road shoes) hands total accountability to the runner. A few arse slides will convince even the most hardened road shoe afficiando of the error of their ways. Wear only trail shoes which the RD will have to inspect creates an accountability issue. "I bought these trail shoes, the RD inspected and said I'ld be grand. I legged it down the side of ART's Lough and that's my last memory". "I am a beginner I relied on the experienced advice of the RD and the mandated shoes, I fell and was injured" - you can see where this is heading. Then as highlighted by Paul S. - what about worn trail shoes, are they acceptable. What about intermediate trail shoes - are they acceptable? Slippy rock sections - are metal studs to be mandated? There is no end to the variation / complications. The mandated jacket is a different issue......every one must bring a jacket. Wear it or carry it, but you must have it. If in 1 in a 100 cases you are injured it will be a benefit. No case could possibly be put that bringing a coat with you, even on the sunniest day, caused you an injury (no heatstroke arguements - you are not required to wear it!) The same applies to other mandated gear eg maps, compasses, phones, hat, gloves, food. You are required to bring them and have them in case of neccessity. You are not required to use them / wear them / eat them. Whereas the implication with the shoes is that they are a benefit and must be worn, if mandated, ( and some beginners may wrongly regard them as a guarantee against falling)......and they are a benefit......but you can still end up on your arse. Just a little less often. |
| Richard Church | Feb 12 2018, 12:54pm | James speaks from the experience of finishing a race last year with a half a shoe and gaffer tape.. I don't think that the offending footwear could have been classified as road or trail shoe, more of a bog shoe. |
| Paul Joyce | Feb 12 2018, 1:58pm | Thanks for all the replies so far lads. I've changed the instruction page to "recommended" rather than mandatory. Rene thats a very good point about Carrauntoohil, and everyone else a very good point about common sense and liberty. Much appreciated adept feedback, cheers. |
| James H Cahill | Feb 12 2018, 2:25pm | And my result reflected my poor footwear choice.......a combination of falling apart Solomon's and extensive use of gaffer tape does not create a grippy shoe. The last two km were covered with the tape in my pocket and my foot protruding. But I am not alone in loosing my shoes to Annagh - Paul Keville tried the foot protruding methodology minus the entire sole of his shoe in 2016 also https://scontent-dub4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/10001094_10153497811718963_2262640551010454473_o.jpg?oh=82293a7422dba3c9d27f1fba57d20bb4&oe=5B114B4F |
| Conor Murphy | Feb 12 2018, 6:34pm | Agree with Stuart and James, allowing it to rest with the RD involves an assumption of liability and allows for a lawyer to make the "they passed inspection so my client was entitled to presume that they were sufficient for the conditions" argument. Conversely of course, not having any guidelines at all raises the opposite argument, "my client was a complete novice and some guidance was required". I always think the issue becomes more acute with junior runners, where the duty of care is higher. |
