The introduction of the new electronic punching systems (EPS's) into orienteering is laudable, but there are several aspects which ought to be considered before they are categorised as `best practice' techniques in the sport. It is not the introduction of technology per se to which I object, but the somewhat misguided belief that EPS's such as SportIdent and Emit are the pinnacle of orienteering technology. These systems undoubtedly have their advantages, foremost among these being the labour-saving element. With these systems it is no longer necessary for event officials to laboriously check through control cards for mispunched controls or other errors. I recently attended a Championship event at which I gained a favourable impression of SportIdent; in addition, the results were available in record time. BOF are "keen to increase the use of technology in order to reduce demands on volunteers" (BOF strategic plan, 1999). However, most orienteers that have used one of the EPS's must be aware that a number of inherent problems are existent in these systems. Among these Sue Davies, writing in Y Ddraig - the Welsh O-newsletter last September, identified:

* the lack of a visual record of which controls one has visited, thus making it possible that one could become confused over which control was next;

* if one loses one's e-card, one is unable to "punch . . . around the map edge";

* no control descriptions on a control card, but instead these have to be read off the back or side of the map, or attached to one's sleeve.

The SportIdent card could easily be lost since it is not pinned onto the sleeve, but buckled on one's finger; and hearing-impaired orienteers may not hear the `bleep' when the e-card is inserted into the control unit (this could be particularly difficult in high wind). My main objection is the cost of e-punching £15 for a SportIdent e-card and £50 for a control unit - this is surely money that could be channelled into other high priority areas of orienteering, especially when even more money will be spent on maintenance, upgrading the EPS's or on buying new EPS's different from SportIdent or Emit.

Clearly, what is desirable is an alternative to the EPS's that is labour-saving, while comprising of the traditional orienteering accoutrements - a visual display of where one has been, control descriptions upon the control card and provision of (pin-based) punches. Leaving aside the argument that e-punching is faster than pin-punching - after all, most experienced orienteers can dash into a control, punch and run off just as quickly (more time can be lost checking the control description on one's sleeve or on the map, and by searching for a lost e-card in heather, or digging in waterlogged peat!) - I feel the benefits of EPS's to organisers outweigh those of their advantages to the participants. Technology is at its best when applied simply, effectively and efficiently. Take the example of devices to draw water from the depths of the earth in a famine- and drought-stricken less developed country, rather than a £10,000 atmospheric-water-extractor! In orienteering we use overprinters to mark out maps en masse which did not change the sport from the participant's aspect (except in ensuring accuracy in most cases), but certainly from the organiser's. I would contend that we should stick with pin-punching on Tyvek control cards and using traditional control units. That seems to be the tried-and-tested 'O' method and it can be `best practice' - what next, orienteers using geographical positioning systems (GPS) to navigate? It is even possible to save competitors' time by printing control descriptions etc onto their Tyvek control cards using PC software such as the excellent Event Administration Program by Gerry Kingston of Fermanagh Orienteers. (see the feature on this program in a previous issue of TIO).

The lynchpin in this argument is as follows: a request for a novel and innovative gadget that saves organisers' time (just as the present EPS's do) and the money of associations, clubs and individual orienteers. In order to read the control cards quickly and accurately, there is immense potential for a device that could, for example, shine light through the pin-pricked holes on the Tyvek control card and that could have 1000s of control cards fed through it rapidly. The device would be able to tell if the correct pattern of pinpricks are in each box and, if not, mark any that are incorrect. Some conceivable difficulties exist with this synopsis, e.g pinprick holes that close over again, but an alternative would be a machine that can detect the raised pinholes on the paper.

Someone who is more technically-minded than I am might be able to come up with a foolproof device. Therefore, a plea goes out to any reader who has the resources and/or the technical knowledge to develop such a device - a feasible and cost-effective alternative to the present EPS's on offer - to contact me by e-mail (JM.Scott@ulst.ac.uk) or at 25 Lansdowne Road, Kilfennan, Northern Ireland, BT47 5QT.