As has been mentioned many times before, the only sure way of forcing competitors to use crossing point(s) is to have a control on it.
I had a crossing point with a (my) control, a crossing point without a control, and a crossing point with a control that wasn't mine.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the 'growth' in wet pits around 88 that weren't there on the 2013 SINS map!
Boc non disqualifications
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Boc non disqualifications
BOF Rules wrote: If a serious problem has been identified, then a decision needs to be made as to what action to take. For
level A events the following is recommended:
If a problem is found to have affected the outcome of a race according to the above criterion, then the recommended solution is to void the course. In line with IOF policy, splits removal must not be considered as an option.
If a serious problem is identified, but by using the criterion defined above, is not considered to have significantly affected the outcome of the race, then the results should be published without adjustment, other than to re-instate any competitor who failed to punch at a control that was missing or misplaced when they reached it.
It's not really an option to remove a split at a level A event.
There's a whole couple of sections in the BOF rules about this, worth a read (7.9.1 onwards)
Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: Boc non disqualifications
So really, if it didn't affect the top 3 then nothing should get done about it.
Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: Boc non disqualifications
What was the nature of the protests? If it was along the lines of "x and y should be disqualified...", then (since this clearly hasn't happened) the decision to reject the protest can only validly have been made by a jury. Jury decisions should be communicated to (at least) the person who made the protest.
Although the protest and decision should be published with the results, there is an exception if the organiser thinks the publicity might harms relationships with the landowner - which seems possible in this case.
Anyone who made a protest can reasonably ask the organiser for a copy of the jury's decision. And after you receive it you still have 14 days to appeal to E&CC.
Although the protest and decision should be published with the results, there is an exception if the organiser thinks the publicity might harms relationships with the landowner - which seems possible in this case.
Anyone who made a protest can reasonably ask the organiser for a copy of the jury's decision. And after you receive it you still have 14 days to appeal to E&CC.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
andy wrote:So really, if it didn't affect the top 3 then nothing should get done about it.
That would rule out voiding the course, or removing the leg (which would cost eddie his medal). But there's no reason not to DQ people who didn't complete the course correctly.
andy wrote:You can't DQ without proof and apparently an impossible split isn't proof.
Yes you can and yes it is. And yes, I have done so.
Take the WRE at bannockburn last year, it was obvious that ... some people crossed the uncrossable fence to the 1st control because of an open gate, but there was no way the rules allowed a DQ apparently
Four points on this one:
1/ there was no athlete protest
2/ I complained to the organiser who accepted the case passed it to the controller (which, um, was also me ). The three of us both agreed that DQ was possible.
3/ After reviewing the race, the controller decided not to DQ on the grounds that there was no significant effect on the race (time gained was around 10sec), and because the athletes' error was primarily due to the map being wrong.
4/ The race was being used for selection, and the selectors were notified of the transgression.
It is slightly annoying that there is no way to report these decisions for future reference.
Last edited by graeme on Thu May 05, 2016 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Andy, so what that others inevitably crossed the fence but we cannot pick it up for certain because their times are not that fast.
The program said as i remember that fences would be monitored and those seen crossing illegaly would be dqd. Your logic would suggest that you cannot do this because one person might sneak across out of sight, when the watcher goes for a pit stop or anything else. You can only dq those who you are certain have definitely transgressed, and andypat's theoretical figures are not possible in my view.
Pete Haines's time is brilliant and i assume correct. Those that approach his time show no ability to run fast on any leg, and those that can run have times that are inconceivable. We are not elites and cannot run at their pace.
The program said as i remember that fences would be monitored and those seen crossing illegaly would be dqd. Your logic would suggest that you cannot do this because one person might sneak across out of sight, when the watcher goes for a pit stop or anything else. You can only dq those who you are certain have definitely transgressed, and andypat's theoretical figures are not possible in my view.
Pete Haines's time is brilliant and i assume correct. Those that approach his time show no ability to run fast on any leg, and those that can run have times that are inconceivable. We are not elites and cannot run at their pace.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Is the map on Routegadget (straight unbroken lines between the controls) the same as the competition map? The rules say:
22.11 Crossing points must be indicated by curved brackets.
o Where there is only one valid option for crossing an "uncrossable" boundary the line between controls should be bent to this point.
o Where there is more than one option for crossing the "uncrossable" boundary the line between controls should be broken either side of the boundary.
so for the leg in question, where the northern crossing point is the only sensible option, the line should have been diverted through it, leaving little scope for misinterpretation.
I thought that, for multiple crossing points, as an alternative it was possible to have multiple lines, one going through each valid crossing point; has that changed?
22.11 Crossing points must be indicated by curved brackets.
o Where there is only one valid option for crossing an "uncrossable" boundary the line between controls should be bent to this point.
o Where there is more than one option for crossing the "uncrossable" boundary the line between controls should be broken either side of the boundary.
so for the leg in question, where the northern crossing point is the only sensible option, the line should have been diverted through it, leaving little scope for misinterpretation.
I thought that, for multiple crossing points, as an alternative it was possible to have multiple lines, one going through each valid crossing point; has that changed?
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
roadrunner wrote:so for the leg in question, where the northern crossing point is the only sensible option, the line should have been diverted through it, leaving little scope for misinterpretation.
... or had a control on it (then noone can cheat - issue resolved)
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
The "overprinting" on Routegadget is generally not exactly the same as on the maps. If you compare your own course with the version on Routegadget, you'll probably find that the control numbers are in different places and that bent lines will be as straight. Certainly this is the case with course 19, which is the map I have here.
- babs f
- light green
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Roadrunner - we has a similar leg on M45L but not quite as silly - I need to check the map for a broken line to see if the rule you quote was followed. It was followed at the JK with a broken line.
I find this of interest as I use the line between controls to inform my direction of travel away from a control when I have not had an opportunity to review the leg. I'm willing to accept that although it might not always be the best route, in the absence of a more considered choice, heading off in the direction of the next control would appear a reasonably sensible approach (as apposed to heading off in any random direction). I was caught out at the JK M45L 8-9 and BOC M45L 13-14. But at least I now know what the difference between a solid and broken line means.
I find this of interest as I use the line between controls to inform my direction of travel away from a control when I have not had an opportunity to review the leg. I'm willing to accept that although it might not always be the best route, in the absence of a more considered choice, heading off in the direction of the next control would appear a reasonably sensible approach (as apposed to heading off in any random direction). I was caught out at the JK M45L 8-9 and BOC M45L 13-14. But at least I now know what the difference between a solid and broken line means.
- Tim
- yellow
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:32 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
graeme wrote:Three points on this one:
1/ there was no athlete protest
2/ I complained to the organiser who accepted the case passed it to the controller (which, um, was also me ). The three of us both agreed that DQ was possible.
3/ After reviewing the race, the controller decided not to DQ on the grounds that there was no significant effect on the race (the gained was around 10sec), and because the athletes' error was primarily due to the map being wrong.
4/ The race was being used for selection, and the selectors were notified of the transgression.
It is slightly annoying that there is no way to report these decisions for future reference.
Yep I know the situation at that race but was using at an example that it's not always clear cut.
Your last point is pretty key, this discussion has been repeated multiple times
EddieH wrote:Andy, so what that others inevitably crossed the fence but we cannot pick it up for certain because their times are not that fast.
Why should one person get ukol points/ranking points/whatever else even though they cheated, while another gets DQd for the same transgression? It's a case of fairness, all in or all out is my opinion.
I DQd myself at the Scottish Sprint champs one year for going through a patch of olive green. It was infuriating seeing others that went through the same patch not get any form of DQ or not raise it themselves. Perhaps they were too stupid to realise they'd done it or perhaps they were just playing the game, not sure.
As always with these issues there were ways the organising team of planner/controller could mitigate them. In the case of BOC: put a control on it, or very clearly mark the fance with a purple line (not sure if it was or not? final details is never enough). In others; man/mark the gates, tape the OOB, etc etc. Make it absolutely enequivocal during the race what should/shouldn't be done.
Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: Boc non disqualifications
For the Scottish Championships crossing points are obvious - the alternative is scaling a 6 foot high deer fence marked as uncrossable fence andwith a purple overprint. No excuses. An occasional unofficial residence for the Royals is clearly marked out of bounds and on my controlling visit I found some sophisticated monitoring systems including cameras.
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Boc non disqualifications
andy wrote:graeme wrote:It is slightly annoying that there is no way to report these decisions for future reference.
Your last point is pretty key, this discussion has been repeated multiple times
What sort of form could such a reporting system take? It could be a database with web interface, where a pdf can be uploaded describing and illustrating the situation, arguments and decision, plus some keywords that allow others to find similar cases. On the other hand, I assume there isn't a lot of content so it could just be a list of PDFs on the SOA [*] website (or it can start as the latter and be turned into the former once there is enough content). The PDFs can contain links to relevant discussions here or elsewhere.
It only works though if people (controllers?) will write up these sort of cases, and others actually look (and know where to look) so it is worth getting the format right...
* or BOF if someone has the right connections
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Freefall wrote:For the Scottish Championships crossing points are obvious - the alternative is scaling a 6 foot high deer fence marked as uncrossable fence andwith a purple overprint. No excuses. An occasional unofficial residence for the Royals is clearly marked out of bounds and on my controlling visit I found some sophisticated monitoring systems including cameras.
How about some patrolling rottweilers? Or corgis
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Freefall wrote:For the Scottish Championships crossing points are obvious - the alternative is scaling a 6 foot high deer fence marked as uncrossable fence andwith a purple overprint. No excuses. An occasional unofficial residence for the Royals is clearly marked out of bounds and on my controlling visit I found some sophisticated monitoring systems including cameras.
Ah finally an opportunity for a pedantic cruise through the ISOM definition of a double tagged fence...
A boarded or wire fence higher than ca 1.5 m, not crossable to the average orienteer,
eg. deer fence.
But since you mentioned purple overprint I'll let you off...
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: spitalfields and 70 guests