You Suck at Belaying

Matt Nwrote:

How's the Edelrid Ohm factor in to all this? Should the soft catch police hire a class action lawyer?

Edelrid has information how Ohm affects catches - https://www.edelrid.de/en/knowledge-base/sports/giving-soft-catches.php 

The relevant summary with the higlight pertaining to thread  -

1. In the first setup, the system is frictionless except for the rope deflection. The belayer behaves completely passively, i.e. does not react deliberately to the impact of the fall. We carry out this test three times and average the forces measured at the deflection. The resulting value is 4.0 kN.
   
   
2. In the second setup, we keep the general parameters the same. This time, however, the belayer jumps off at the right moment, using body dynamics to reduce the impact force. The averaged value is now reduced to 2.9 kN. Body dynamics alone can, therefore, decrease the impact force by more than 25 %.
   
   
3. In the third setup, we now want to investigate whether the system's rope friction or the behavior of the belayer has a greater effect on the impact force. In order to enhance friction, we put an OHM into the safety chain. The OHM generates a friction enhancement that corresponds to a weight force of about 20 kg, which effectively makes the climber about 20 kg lighter. As in the first setup, the belayer behaves completely passively. The average value after three attempts is 4.6 kN. The impact force at the deflection has therefore increased by about 0.5 kN compared to low-friction situations.
   
   
4. The last setup is the same as the previous one, but this time again with an active behavior of the belayer, i.e. with the use of body dynamics. Surprisingly, an impact force of only 2.6 kN is generated here, less than with the same behavior in the low-friction situation. The measured braking distances are also lower than in the second setup.

Josh Squirewrote:

It’s really quite simple. It’s called mechanism of injury. If I was skiing down a hill and slammed into a tree and got injured, would we be debating if I would have been injured if I didn’t hit the tree?

Climber slams into the wall and breaks their ankle. Belayer failed to give a soft catch. Sometimes 1 + 1 = 2. Instead of doubling down on what you believe to be true, maybe you could learn something.

Edit to clarify: the entire purpose of giving a soft catch, if the situation warrants it, is to PREVENT the climber slamming into the wall.

That doesn't make any sense and does not fit the definition of mechanism of injury (MOI) and the true MOI would argue against you. (from a medical professional perspective) A soft belay might bring the MOI force down below the injury threshold in some cases, but it is rarely analogous to hitting a tree. Unless you are arguing that a hard catch slams you into a wall and a soft catch prevents you from even hitting the wall, which is rare. The vast majority of falls end with the climber contacting the wall towards the end of the fall and a soft catch tries to reduce the force to a level below the MOI force. Maybe that turns what would be a broken leg into a sprain, or a sprain into a hematoma, or a hematoma into nothing. In your analogy, a soft catch would be slowing your velocity upon impact so the tree doesn't kill you, just maims you. It is not just hitting a tree or not. Seems this is something you have no knowledge of.

A V wrote:

Story time:

One time, a friend of mine was leading autumn - an area classic 5.9 at RRG - and was climbing through the crux ~ 10 feet above his last cam and ~20 feet above a small alcove. He is pumping out, and decides that he is going to fall. He yells to his belayer "taaake!" 

I lock eyes with his belayer, who after a split second of contemplating the request, shrugs and takes in slack and sits back into a "take" right as the climber starts falling. Had he taken a normal fall, he would have fallen past the alcove and been okay. But... with the slack taken out of the system and the hard catch in play, he swings into the alcove (only way to hit it since it was a concave feature inside of the wall), lands on it, and breaks his ankle. In this particular case, the climber was gripped and wanted to take the shortest fall that he can take because it intuitively feels less dangerous - when in reality, a longer, softer fall would have been significantly safer in that spot - though counterintuitive and more scary on lead.  

Anecdotally, this exact alcove was also the scene of a broken leg and a heli evac just a few months after this accident. Can't comment on the belay that lead to that outcome, but my suspicion is that similar circumstances came into play. 

Is this the climb? https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105868022/autumn

It looks like a beautiful climb! I see from the photos the alcove you are probably talking about. I can see how swinging into that could be a bad impact. But I have a hard time believing that any belayer can control the precise impact point of a 20 foot fall well enough to avoid that situation. I also think a longer fall past the alcove may not have avoided injury. If they hit the alcove, they would also hit the wall below it.

I totally get using a soft catch to make a swing on a sport climb more gentle but I think using it to aim for a precise landing spot is guesswork at best.

I'm small and I don't have to try hard to give a soft catch unless my partner is also small. But I'm going to do it where it is clearly a good choice and pass on the fancy stuff.

PS, Josh Squire: There's no belayer in skiiing!

A V wrote:

Story time:

One time, a friend of mine was leading autumn - an area classic 5.9 at RRG - and was climbing through the crux ~ 10 feet above his last cam and ~20 feet above a small alcove. He is pumping out, and decides that he is going to fall. He yells to his belayer "taaake!" 

I lock eyes with his belayer, who after a split second of contemplating the request, shrugs and takes in slack and sits back into a "take" right as the climber starts falling. Had he taken a normal fall, he would have fallen past the alcove and been okay. But... with the slack taken out of the system and the hard catch in play, he swings at a high rate of speed into the alcove (only way to hit it since it was a concave feature inside of the wall), lands on it, and breaks his ankle on impact. In this particular case, the climber was gripped and wanted to take the shortest fall that he can possibly take because it intuitively feels less dangerous - when in reality, a longer, softer fall would have been significantly safer in that spot. 

Anecdotally, this exact alcove was also the scene of a broken leg and a heli evac just a few months after this accident. Can't comment on the belay that lead to that outcome, but my suspicion is that similar circumstances came into play. 

Another story time:

Once I was the belayer for a climber who had skipped the third bolt of a climb and whipped moving to the fourth. In this case, I had to run back and take in an armful of slack (gri-gri really helped here) as he started to pitch off of the wall. He blasts the wall like 6 inches above the ground, which was painful, but he didn't deck... which was the important part. He finished the route after we all nervously laughed about how bad that could have been. 

Moral of the stories: 

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions in climbing. If you always give a soft catch, or always give a hard catch, chances are that you need to do some reflecting on the reasons why your climbing partners are turning down opportunities to climb with you.

Because I have the time, I'll offer another take on your buddy's "accident/injury" - I disagree the hard catch caused the injury. (Surprise surprise) Your buddy was hurt because he chose to place no protection for the 10 feet of climbing leading to the crux, which is patently dangerous and risky on almost any 5.9 route. This mega classic crack has 454 opinions and ZERO suggestions that it is a "PG" route, let alone "R." The photos show people leading the route with plenty of gear above the alcove, as the route is a continuous crack that can be protected at any point.

Had your buddy placed gear anywhere in the 10 feet after his last cam, the fall would likely have been fine regardless of a hard or soft catch. You choose to turn a safe climb into a dangerous one, don't ever, ever, ever blame your belayer for the natural consequence of your poor decision to run it out and then actually fall.  

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/stats/105868022/autumn

Josh Squirewrote:

It’s really quite simple. It’s called mechanism of injury. If I was skiing down a hill and slammed into a tree and got injured, would we be debating if I would have been injured if I didn’t hit the tree?

Climber slams into the wall and breaks their ankle. Belayer failed to give a soft catch. Sometimes 1 + 1 = 2. Instead of doubling down on what you believe to be true, maybe you could learn something.

Edit to clarify: the entire purpose of giving a soft catch, if the situation warrants it, is to PREVENT the climber slamming into the wall.

Willy, maybe you haven't been in variety of settings and are referring only to the Red because of the OP- steep unobstructed sport routes, but no, only in specific instances does a soft catch take you from slamming the wall hard enough to cause injury, to not even touching it. That is not the goal of a soft catch, and that is pretty rare. It is about decreasing the horizontal velocity to lessen the impact force. Maybe re-read the simplified physics explanations and watch a few videos, such as the very nice ones linked a few pages ago. Surly I have more to learn. If you equate skiing into trees to lead falls, you might also have a bit to learn... Although it would be a lot easier to have your simplified view.

A V wrote:

A good belayer that has extensive experience with catching falls can absolutely predict where their climber will land at the end of the fall within a few feet.

Sorry but these kind of claims do not inspire confidence for me. I appreciate that you take belaying very seriously and that is is certainly a positive.... better than someone who does not take it seriously for sure. But you are claiming some extraordinary skill that could only be achievable with tremendous amounts of practice, trail and error, if it even is achievable. How did you master such precise skills without lots of failed experiments along the way?

It reminds me of people that claim to be expert drivers (almost always guys, lol) . How did they get so good? If they were professionally trained or spent years on a race track that would explain it. But if someone's driving history is mostly commuting to work for years like the rest of us, then how did they get so much better than everyone else?

Of course the people who think they are extraordinary drivers often do reckless things like follow too close behind or switch lanes often because they are so sure they can avoid a collision or react faster than the rest of us... 

Hope for Movementwrote:

That doesn't make any sense and does not for the definition of mechanism of injury (MOI) and the true MOI would argue against you. (from a medical professional perspective) A soft belay might bring the MOI force down below the injury threshold in some cases, but it is rarely analogous to hitting a tree. Unless you are arguing that a hard catch slams you into a wall and a soft catch prevents you from even hitting the wall, which is rare. The vast majority of falls end with the climber contacting the wall towards the end of the fall and a soft catch tries to reduce the force to a level below the MOI force. Maybe that turns what would be a broken leg into a sprain, or a sprain into a hematoma, or a hematoma into nothing. In your analogy, a soft catch would be slowing your velocity upon impact so the tree doesn't kill you, just maims you. It is not just hitting a tree or not. Seems this is something you have no knowledge of.

Haha. Ok. The point was hitting or not, or hitting something softly or hard. The more force the more likely an injury. I don’t understand what the debate here is.

So, if we’re using the tree analogy (although I was reminded there is no belayer in skiing and I guess I didn’t know that before. Haha), if I hit a tree at top speed or if I fall and skid into the tree drastically reducing my speed, then I will cut down on injury risk due to speed alone. And getting a soft catch is way more effective than that.

Josh Squirewrote:

…So, if we’re using the tree analogy (although I was reminded there is no belayer in skiing and I guess I didn’t know that before. Haha), if I hit a tree at top speed or if I fall and skid into the tree drastically reducing my speed, then I will cut down on injury risk due to speed alone. And getting a soft catch is way more effective than that.

There seem to be many perspectives here.  Some seem to be blaming the tree, some are splitting hairs on whether 180 slalom skis would let you avoid the tree vs 190 GS skis, and then some just see a Gaper who is skiing terrain he shouldn’t be on.
probably everyone is right to some extent.

But to me, a climber who is experienced enough to lead routes where such considerations are necessary, should be savvy enough to select their ropes, belay devices, etc and discuss with their belayer the game plan.   The climber is in charge.  The climber should not be surprised like a deer in the headlights.  Otherwise it’s kinda like a pro golfer blaming his caddie for handing him the wrong club.  

Astrid Reywrote:

Sorry but these kind of claims do not inspire confidence for me. I appreciate that you take belaying very seriously and that is is certainly a positive.... better than someone who does not take it seriously for sure. But you are claiming some extraordinary skill that could only be achievable with tremendous amounts of practice, trail and error, if it even is achievable. How did you master such precise skills without lots of failed experiments along the way?

Regarding climbing safety, it's important to master the skills without failed experiments, in fact don't experiment at all, just observe and learn. A good belayor is always asking themselves "What if they right here, what will I do?".

Joe Prescottwrote:

Willy, maybe you haven't been in variety of settings and are referring only to the Red because of the OP- steep unobstructed sport routes, but no, only in specific instances does a soft catch take you from slamming the wall hard enough to cause injury, to not even touching it. That is not the goal of a soft catch, and that is pretty rare. It is about decreasing the horizontal velocity to lessen the impact force. Maybe re-read the simplified physics explanations and watch a few videos, such as the very nice ones linked a few pages ago. Surly I have more to learn. If you equate skiing into trees to lead falls, you might also have a bit to learn... Although it would be a lot easier to have your simplified view.

Who’s Willy? I have climbed all over the world in a variety of settings, so I think I have the requisite experience. Now, I want to be clear because I think this thread is all over the place. I responded to this thread SOLELY based on some people saying you should never give a soft catch. That is false and is a required skill in harder sport and even steep trad. You keep saying that it’s rare. That is totally dependent on the individual. I know climbers who never fall, never climb above 5.8, and never leave their home area. That’s totally fine and I have no problem with that. But when you challenge someone on something they have experience with and you don’t, then maybe just stop. I also train a lot in the gym on steep lead routes, so I may give way more soft catches then your average climber. Like I said, it’s totally dependent on the individual climber.

The tree thing was merely to compare impact forces. Apparently that analogy didn’t work for people :)

Once again, the ability to give a soft catch is mandatory if you are to belay me on a steep project. As far as you personally saying it’s rare, then that’s probably true. Only you and your circle know that. But don’t assume other climbers aren’t using it all the time.

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Story time,

I once saw a girl get spiked at the Red and sprain her ankle. She then proceeded to apologize profusely to her male climbing partner for getting hurt. After the guy walked away, my female climbing partner let her know that it actually wasn't her fault and that the guy was just a bad belayer. The injured girl didn't understand. Talk about Stockholm syndrome.

I would imagine the disconnect on this thread results largely from the type of climbing that people do. If you most just climb trad, or vertical (snoozefest) sport climbs it's not really a relevant topic. If you mostly climb overhanging (real) sport climbs, it is relevant. I have seen lots of folks get injured from hard catches. The people who give attentive belays and soft catches don't spike their climbers and injure them. The people who don't give soft catches occasionally do. It is pretty simple.

Simple for the entitled sport bruh.

Still waiting on soft catch technique instructions on less vert rock. Maybe red bull or the AF could do some vids?

Whats really classic here is that its almost 99% about single pitch cragging(or the gym) and doesn't include being locked into a belay or less vert climbing

Would love to learn how not to get massive rock rash soft catching on PNW crystalline granite alpine slab.    

Frank Steinwrote:

As angsty and unpleasant as this thread is, there are a few things that are worth saying. There are no absolutes, and everything is situation dependent.  In roughly three decades of climbing, I was the belayer on two catches that resulted in broken ankles.

The first was my wife on a slightly overhanging route when she blew the second clip. I intentionally gave her a hard catch to keep her off the deck. Would she have decked? Maybe. If she did, would the injury have been worse?  The landing was pretty bad, so probably. Despite a lot of soul searching, I think that a hard catch may have been the least bad choice.

The second incident was when my partner fell from the anchors of a slightly less than vertical route. He was about 15’ runout at the time, and I stepped into the fall to give him a soft catch. The catch was soft, but the fall was bigger than it needed to be, and upon reflection, a tighter/harder belay probably would have been preferable.

Anyway, I’m not sure what my point is other than that absolutes are recipe for problems. Still, I sure do enjoy the gumby-bros at gym nearly decking with each fall because of “soft catch!”

If someone blows a clip really low on a route, there's not a whole heckuva lot the belayer can do about it. Usually, the goal is to try to keep them from decking. It will be a harder, faster, fall, simply because there's not much rope in the system, and not much friction. 

If someone falls well above their last clip farther up, and you want to shorten the fall, you may be able to just squat down and get some of that slack. They may even get a soft catch when the rope comes taut, if you just let it pull you back to standing. If it's a big fall, or they're heavier, that might be the default, in any case. 

@Matthew, you said the guy was a foot off the ground? Was he lifted? That's a soft catch. Or, what did you mean?

@Fritz, I think my gote spotted cheesecake on the other side of that fence and was plotting an escape. And the pillow gote is....well, definitely full on gote, eh?

All, even with all the bickering, and whatever? These seemingly useless threads can actually help. Don't forget, lots more people read than post, and there's almost always some bit of something useful. 

It was still more fun bitd though.

Best, Helen

Pete Swrote:

Would love to learn how not to get massive rock rash soft catching on PNW crystalline granite alpine slab.    

Stop climbing nude?   

Old lady Hwrote:

Stop 

OMG!

M Mwrote:

OMG!

You are correct, and I am suitably chastised.

PNW climbers need all the sun exposure they can get.

If I let go of this rope, you be laying on the ground.

M Mwrote:

Whats really classic here is that its almost 99% about single pitch cragging(or the gym) and doesn't include being locked into a belay or less vert climbing

Which is pretty much all of RRG (scene of the OP). You've ever noticed how popular it is?

I climb vert, and slab, and the default setting is "give me a soft catch". It's so rare when I dont want one that I communicate it to my belayer to do something different when it comes along. Sure, the slab in the Red is 10* max, at least what I've climbed, but it is certainly slab. 

I truly believe that people have an extremely wide range of what "soft catch" actually means, and that's a crucial point. My "soft catch" is not a 40 ft lobber for no reason. I see this way to much too, having a huge amount of slack out, when it's completely unnecessary.

My technique is to have practically zero slack in the system, unless the climber's waist is close to the bolt. If it is, ill have a baby j out in front of me, otherwise the rope is going practically straight to the climber. I also stand directly under the bolt, out from under the climber to which ever side keeps the rope away from the fall path. Since the rope has no slack, I'm paying out slack directly with the climber, when they need it. Most people won't like this idea because it is more work, but it is the safest option, to have the least amount of slack in the system as possible. 

Now, if a fall happens, based on a few factors, you could sit there, you could bend your knees and "go", or you could bend your knees and jump. You have to think about the general weight difference, the length of the fall, and how much friction is in the system. Once those three things are estimated, you do what's needed to minimize the fall length by bending your knees and even pulling in an arm's length if there's enough slack out, and the second/main objective is to reduce the force at the particular moment when the rope comes under tension. This can be done in a very short span, like the link Lena posted of the robo belay that's going to replace you all! This means the fall length is minimized (although slightly further than a hard catch), the force of the climber's movement towards the wall is minimized, and the transition into a tensioned rope is smoothed out as well, giving the climber a much better chance of getting their feet and legs in a good position coming into the wall.

To picture the extremes, imagine falling on a steel cable tied to a tree, and your last piece is 5 ft under a roof. You will be swing set'd into the wall at full velocity. Now picture the opposite, the ultimate soft catch! You have no rope, or the rope is not arrested during a fall.... youd fall straight down without swinging in at all. Now realize your goal as a belayer is to ease the transition between the moment your climber went from the free fall, to the theoretical steel cable: the fully tensioned rope. Thats your job.

...Not doing what guy did, standing on a rock, away from the wall about 10ft, lovely j, and when the catch is over, your butt is lower than the point your feet originally were. (@OLH)  

Now, I will state this, this is my technique, because it's easy to reproduce the right catch every time, and you don't risk getting pulled into the wall super hard being as close to the first as you can get, and it minimizes the amount of rope in the system. That being said, I know people can produce the same catches using different techniques, like standing way off from the wall and really walking/running in with a fall. I would never recommend that to anyone, but it can work.