That (chalk lines way wider than the actual cone's base) is a whole different and very-hard-to-police issue. I'd think that would eventually have to be dealt with by the chief of course.Jeff Stuart wrote:The problem wasn't that the cone was protruding outside of the chalk line, it was that the cone was rotated, but still contained wholly within the chalk line, at least that's my understanding. I definitely noticed a few very generously boxed cones when I was walking, where the chalk was a good 2 inches outside of the cones edge. I remember thinking at the time that it didn't seem fair, because the cone could be placed in two different but legal ways, and make the course two inches wider/narrower.Kurt Rahn wrote: Anyway, back to the question at hand, I've never measured the base of a cone, but if you figure it's 10" and that when you outline it, that outline will be around .5" wider than that on each side, a cone can still be legal when the person before you hit it, and cause a 10" change to the course when you approach it (okay, maybe 8" when you count the part of the cone that rises from the base). Going through a Chicago box, slalom or other such precision element, that could be a huge difference. It seems like a no-brainer that two different sets of criteria should be applied to cones hit and stopping for a cone and getting a re-run. It'd be pretty easy to create a real-world example and convince anyone who thinks otherwise.
However, if you have to make a black-or-white judgement regarding the cone being moved at all from its original position, even if it was just nudged, if someone driving the course after someone else nudged it was able to tell that that cone was out of position and was willing to sacrifice a run to make that statement, then I think they should be given a re-run (assuming the cone was actually moved out of place enough to tell).
