Removing Legs
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
49 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Removing Legs
So we now have a precendent for removing splits at a Level A event (truncating a race early is just removing a load of splits - something which is more explicit in the IOF rules) so it will be interesting to see what the future holds. When the relevant guidelines were originally written BOF Rules Group understood that there would be unintended consequences which is why the binary option of void or leave was stipulated.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Removing Legs
Buzz wrote:DJM wrote:OCAD Sketch does this (amongst others) and, as a controller, I wouldn't check control sites any other way. You still have to make allowances for GPS accuracy however.
I hope you would check the control site in other ways - there are all sorts of other issues that GPS location doesn't cover.
It goes without saying that sites are double-checked via map and compass etc also! I should have worded things more clearly in the first post ...
You have to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of using GPS to check sites in the field. You need a geo-referenced map and one (ideally) based on a Lidar survey. You need to be more careful when under dense tree cover or (as Ben Mitchell says) on steep slopes, and it needs to be dry too as touch screens have a habit of not liking damp.
Having mentioned these, I wouldn't be without GPS aid nowadays when checking sites.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Removing Legs
I’m slightly bemused by the idea of using GPS devices to check control sites when planning / controlling (as opposed to mapping, where it makes complete sense.)
Surely if you can’t be sure that a control is in the right place without a GPS aid, then neither can competitors (who by definition aren’t allowed them) ?
Unless all you’re doing is checking the pit you’d like to use is indeed in the correct place, but then that would merely be correcting a mapping error that shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 30 years of planning it’s that if as a planner (or controller) you have even the smallest doubt about whether a site is appropriate to use, then don’t use it - because you will have spent considerable time double checking the site from multiple angles whereas the competitor won’t have that luxury.
Surely if you can’t be sure that a control is in the right place without a GPS aid, then neither can competitors (who by definition aren’t allowed them) ?
Unless all you’re doing is checking the pit you’d like to use is indeed in the correct place, but then that would merely be correcting a mapping error that shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 30 years of planning it’s that if as a planner (or controller) you have even the smallest doubt about whether a site is appropriate to use, then don’t use it - because you will have spent considerable time double checking the site from multiple angles whereas the competitor won’t have that luxury.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Removing Legs
'because you will have spent considerable time double checking the site from multiple angles whereas the competitor won’t have that luxury.'
Ever seen some folk in a proper forest
Ever seen some folk in a proper forest
Go orienteering in Lithuania......... best in the world:)
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
-
Gross - god
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:13 am
- Location: Heading back to Scotland
Re: Removing Legs
buzz wrote:We had one of the misplaced controls (87 marsh) and of the half a dozen competitors I asked no one else noticed it was blatantly in the wrong place (bottom of the reentrant instead of half way up the slope)
How do you know the identity of the misplaced control(s)? If more than just number 87, which were the others?
Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIK there is no information given on the jk website detailing the decision of the jury or the thinking behind it. (And if that's correct it's a serious failing. Our premier competition has courses truncated and voided and the ordinary Joe gets no information at all???)
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: Removing Legs
NeilC wrote:Here are a couple for starters...
A well rehearsed and well articulated summary of the reasons against voiding legs. Nevertheless I am unconvinced by the conclusion. There is no truly satisfactory solution, and I still believe that voiding legs is usually the least worst option. There are just too many other sources of randomness in an O race (e.g. elephant tracks for late starters, to name one massive source of unfairness, especially in the jk terrain!) for me to be convinced that the scenarios described will be a dominant effect on the race.
For one thing, we could assert that using knowledge that a leg will be voided to reconnoitre the terrain, or take an undue rest, is unsportsmanlike and will result in disqualification.
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: Removing Legs
Crex wrote:buzz wrote:We had one of the misplaced controls (87 marsh) and of the half a dozen competitors I asked no one else noticed it was blatantly in the wrong place (bottom of the reentrant instead of half way up the slope)
How do you know the identity of the misplaced control(s)? If more than just number 87, which were the others?
It's pretty obvious if you look at Winsplits and Routegadget (which shows the entire courses). M21E was truncated at control 13 (178) which suggests that control 14 (179) was one with a problem (and that was also on W21E), while the splits for the top W21E competitors on control 2 (87) certainly suggest a problem there.
On the "removing splits" issue: an article in CompassSport said that, if there was a problem with a course (such as a misplaced control), it should be rectified if possible. So even if later runners heard that a control was misplaced or missing, they could not be sure that it hadn't been corrected by the time they would have reached it. If the legs either side of that control were removed, I think it would be reasonable to disqualify anyone who missed it out after it had been moved to the correct place. Still not 100% fair I agree, but maybe not a bad compromise?
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Removing Legs
JK M & W 21E are elite international races (or meant to be anyway). So if the course is wrong then it's wrong. Cutting legs in an international elite race is nonsense.... it's the way of the world.
Go orienteering in Lithuania......... best in the world:)
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
-
Gross - god
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:13 am
- Location: Heading back to Scotland
Re: Removing Legs
Why was the women’s course voided, whilst the men course was truncated? Doesn’t feel right that they were treated differently. Weren’t both the result of control issues?
-
HarryO - orange
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:52 pm
Re: Removing Legs
The women's course had a significant issue with the 2nd control so would have been a very short resulting course.
The JK website has now published the (split) decision of E&CC members on the protest against the jury decision. Looks like the new Rules Group has some futher rules clarifications to sort out.
The JK website has now published the (split) decision of E&CC members on the protest against the jury decision. Looks like the new Rules Group has some futher rules clarifications to sort out.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Removing Legs
buzz wrote:We had one of the misplaced controls (87 marsh) and of the half a dozen competitors I asked no one else noticed it was blatantly in the wrong place (bottom of the reentrant instead of half way up the slope) - they didn't read the descriptions and just saw the flag punched the control and ran on.
As one of the competitors on course 16, which was also affected by the misplaced control, I certainly noticed something amiss. As my agility/mobility is not great, I deliberately stayed high on the leg from the previous control #2, as #3 was 2 contours higher, and I did not want to lose any height. Those who headed downhill were rewarded by easily finding the misplaced control in the re-entrant, whereas those like me, who navigated to the correct location, as confirmed by my GPX trace on RG, were severely disadvantaged, as I then lost 3 1/2 minutes, going back and forth, before reluctantly heading down through the quagmire, where I found the control behind a large rhododendron clump.
I only found out that this control was the misplaced one affecting the elite courses after reading about it here on Nopesport. For the sake of fairness, I would have expected the relevant legs on our course, and others similarly affected, to have been removed, and am surprised that this issue seems to have been completely ignored.
- xxx
- off string
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:38 pm
Re: Removing Legs
The most concerning bit about the written decision for me is that the organiser intially rejected both M and W complaints on the ground that “the planner and controller were very experienced”. Then when someone actually went to have a look, turns out both controls were in the wrong place.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 740
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Removing Legs
I believe control 85 (M65L control 2 on Sunday) was also on the wrong pit, just outside the circle to the SW of the intended one. This is based on my approach, being a bit off where I expected to be on the following leg, and where my GPS says I went.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Removing Legs
The most concerning bit about the written decision for me is that the organiser intially rejected both M and W complaints on the ground that “the planner and controller were very experienced”.
Organisers regularly get complaints about controls being in the wrong place which just turn out to be the fault of the competitor's navigation. Given how many other things there are for the organiser to worry about at an event like the JK then it was probably sensible to assume they were ok and wait to see if there was a protest aganst the decision. There was, and the proper process was then followed.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Removing Legs
I have long been uncomfortable with Rules 7.9.5 and 28.3, and feel that under 4.1 and 7.9.3 the least bad outcome is to remove legs or truncate the course. The Appeal panel were in a difficult position and with the rules as written I think the decision could have gone either way, with justification.
As I have said on several occasions, I favour amending the rules to enable the removal of legs / truncation as the least bad (as opposed to good) outcome in some circumstances, such as these. I would not support truncating the WE course at control 1 !
As I have said on several occasions, I favour amending the rules to enable the removal of legs / truncation as the least bad (as opposed to good) outcome in some circumstances, such as these. I would not support truncating the WE course at control 1 !
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
49 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 30 guests