Removing Legs

[roadrunner]

When the rules are next revised, perhaps something could be done to make the numbering better: rules 4.1 and 28.3 mentioned earlier are in the body of the document, but 7.9.3 and 7.9.5 are in Appendix A (Event Systems), and to add to the confusion there is a rule 7.9 in the main body about not reaching over uncrossable features. There are even cases of rules with the same number in both places (4.2.1-4.2.3, which in the main body refer to unfair advantage and in Appendix A to the jury)!

Perhaps rules in the appendices should be numbered A7.9.3 etc or at least referred to as such?

[pete.owens]

Whatever you think of the merits in terms of a fair outcome of truncating a course, I really don't see any way that the juries decision can remotely be consistent with Rule 28.3: "At level A events the results must be based on competitors’ times for the whole course, no changes are permitted to these times on the basis of split times."

In any case for a WRE the IOF rules should take precedence in which case the decision is simple:
Rule 26.13 "The organiser must void a race if circumstances have arisen which make the race significantly unfair."

[SJC]

In any case for a WRE the IOF rules should take precedence in which case the decision is simple:

For some reason this year they weren't WREs so IOF rules weren't applicable.

[graeme]

JK2024 Middle Elite Race Protest

Preamble.
Complaints were received about many controls. The organiser quickly rejected the complaint about 87 based on reports from planner and controller. This escalated to a protest and we the jury (Graeme Ackland, Keith Tonkin, Tony Carlyle) convened. We were made aware of all complaints and decided to visit all controls. While we were out, the organiser rejected the complaint about 179 based on reports from planner and controller. A protest was subsequently submitted.

Two of the controls were in the wrong place. 87 on an unmapped marsh, at the edge of the circle, flag visible from the correct location. 179 in the wrong pit, well outside the circle such that not even someone punching could be seen from the correct location. Inspection of split times showed time losses of several minutes by many competitors.
179 is only on M/W21E, 87 was on a number of courses (not M21E).

Three other controls were complained about. We deemed them to be in the correct place, the complaints were rejected and no protests were received.

Rules and Discussion (in red)

As always, we start with

Rule 4.1 The spirit of fairness and good fellowship is to be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport, including the interpretation of these Rules.

Rule 7.9.3
The primary purpose of an orienteering race is to determine the best orienteers on the day [lengthy explanation] the Organiser might feel that it would be best not to void the race or adjust the results

We considered the effect of all courses which had the wrong controls, guided by 7.9.3. We decided that according to rule 7.9.3, only M21E and W21E races were significantly affected. We also decided that as a two day race, knock-on effects to the overall result could be consider if a further protest arose on those courses. We decided that any effects on Selections or Rankings would be ignored, as they could be address later.


Rule 7.9.5 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. Splits removal must not be considered as an option.

We note the carefully-worded distinction in the rules between “recommended” adjustments and “must not” adjustments. We assume that 7.9.3 and 7.9.5 together permit any adjustment other than splits removal, which determines the best orienteers on the day and remained within 4.1. This interpretation is supported by 7.10.1

7.10.1 There are no simple rules that can be defined as to what action to take when a problem arises since different outcomes are warranted depending on the exact circumstances. Decisions will need to be subjective at times, but this appendix should help guide officials towards an appropriate course of action.


We quickly decided that athletes needed to know their day 2 start times, so they should be determined based on the pre-protest times. We forgot that it also affected the split into M21E1 and M21E2. This was unfortunate for the ultimate winner of M21E2.

We decided that there was enough evidence to determine that Jonny Crickmore was the best orienteer on the day, while for the women’s race this was unclear. We also noted significant effects on other potential medallists including eventual JK Champions Luke Fisher and Cecile Anderson. We attempted to find a way to ensure Rule 7.9.3 was satisfied, in accordance with Rule 4.1, using the leeway afforded us by Rule 7.10.1. We observed that any proposal from the jury needs to be accepted by the organiser.

28.3 At level A events the results must be based on competitors’ times for the whole course, no changes are permitted to these times on the basis of split times.

This, alongside more detailed explanation in the Appendices, underlines the reasons why split removal is unfair. We note that the statement “no changes are permitted to these times on the basis of split times.” would be unnecessary unless other changes are allowed, and further reinforces our interpretation of 7.9.5. We considered downgrading the event to level B and removing splits as a way to allow recognition of the best orienteers on the day, but we were not sure how to do this and brief discussion with the athletes suggested a formally devalued competition would not be welcomed.

There are no perfect solutions. We decided that no solution which included time lost at 179 could be included in the results, particularly for a two-day race. Time lost at 87 was less significant.

We came to the conclusion that the rules permitted us to declare the course to finish at the control before 179. This would mean the race was held over the full course, and avoid all the unfairnesses associated with splits removal. For the mens course, this mean the winning time for “average of the top 3” was just over 20 minutes. Noting that the winning time for 20E/18E is 20-25mins, we deemed this to be an acceptable length to determine the best middle distance elite orienteer on the day.
Inspecting the W21E results, this solution would have meant Megan Carter-Davis won W21E, due of time lost by Fiona Bunn at control #2 (misplaced 87). This clearly violates 7.9.3. We felt there was no alternative but to void the course.

For the men, the leading results were somewhat unchanged whether one compares shortened course, original results or splits removal: Jonny Crickmore wins and Simon Harden is second, and the top-7 remain the top 7 in each case. Splits removal is explicitly forbidden by the rules. Using the original results meant that some runners further down would be unfairly taken out of contention for the JK (2-day) competiton . This was deemed an unacceptable violation of rule 4.1.

Therefore, we decided that the solution which best satisfies the rules is declare that the course finished at 13. We discussed this with many elites, but nobody had a better solution.

To summarise the rejection of other solution:
Splits removal is forbidden
Using the original result violate Rule 4.1
Voiding violates Rule 7.9.3
Downgrading to level B, was not wanted by affected athletes.

Resolution

The organiser decided to implement the recommendation of the jury.

After Day 2, the JK champions are Luke Fisher and Cecile Anderson. Consideration of all the evidence leaves us in no doubt that they demonstrated themselves to be the best orienteers on the weekend. In addition, Jonny Crickmore is rewarded for being clearly the best orienteer in the middle distance. No misplaced controls were involved in this result. It sometimes unwise to judge decisions with hindsight, but in this case we are obviously delighted that we achieved the correct outcome.

We would also like to note that we felt that the Organiser was right to reject the original complaint, based on the information he had at the time. We further compliment him for doing so promptly, while encouraging a formal protest to allow more detailed consideration by the jury.

[Arnold]

All seems very sensible and well thought through to me, thanks Graeme for the additional info.

I’m guessing the rules will now be amended to also explicitly ban using truncated courses, but I hope not as it seems the “least worst” outcome in the circumstances.

[NeilC]

I’m guessing the rules will now be amended to also explicitly ban using truncated courses

Given the desire to align BOF rules closely to those of the IOF then yes this seems likely. Truncating the M21E course was an excellent solution to the problem of deciding the overall JK on the basis of two days but I don't believe that it "clearly" indicated the best middle distance orienteer. A look at the 2023 JK results for example show that the person leading M21 at 23 minutes did not go on to win, in W21 the person in 2nd didn't end up on the podium.

Determining the "least bad" outcome is subjective and almost impossible to define via any sort of guidelines. I also feel that leaving it to the organiser to decide the most appropriate outcome would lack consistency. The role of the jury is to decide whether or not the rules were followed, and here found that the rules were far from clear and so found themselves in the difficult position of having to decide which rules were the most important. I'm sure that Rules Group will look into this, but are likely to come up with a solution that not all the posters on here will agree with.

[King Penguin]

There is a poll currently open on Compasssport re. whether the rules should allow leg removal. See https://www.compasssport.co.uk/
Be intereting to see what the result is ......

[Snail]

Unless there is an accompanying article giving the pros and cons I think any such vote is likely to be in favour of removal. Most people will consider it a simple issue.

[yted]

Did the jury notice that some controls were in a different place on the elite maps compared to the non-elite maps? I had a control in the wrong place (not very wrong)... son-in-law said it was in the right place... some debate ensued before we compared maps and found it was in the centre of his circle but not in the centre of mine!

[Snail]

Different by just any misalignment of register marks (assuming all maps were offset-litho printed), or something more? Same scale or different scale?

Where maps are offset-litho printed for major events I suspect some planners / controllers / organisers now underestimate the time required, or even the need, to check every map individually before use.

I could easily imagine planners setting up two different files for different scale maps, and accidentally place circles slightly differently.

[pete.owens]

If it was a different scale it is likely to be to do with using different sized circles for the 1:7500 maps, rather than a straight enlargement - thus requiring a different file with different cuts and different control descriptions. The more complicated you make things, the more things you need to check and the greater likelyhood that you will miss something.

[pete.owens]

Unless there is an accompanying article giving the pros and cons I think any such vote is likely to be in favour of removal. Most people will consider it a simple issue.

... or even the importance of the particular competition.

There are things that would be acceptable at a local evening event that would not be at the world championships.

[MChub]

Should there also be a discussion of what can be done to reduce the likelihood of such mistakes happening in the first place? For example, why is there only one controller at level A events? With so many things to check, it's no surprise that some corners are cut. Should there be a mandatory assistant controller/vetter, whose only job would be to check that the controls are in the right places and have the right numbers (during the planning stage and on the day)? They don't need to be highly qualified or accredited, just competent orienteers.

[buzz]

Should there also be a discussion of what can be done to reduce the likelihood of such mistakes happening in the first place?

Absolutely.

The first problem is that often folk aren't aware of mistakes because people are reluctant to give negative feedback in part because its treated as complaining or moaning.

Once I'd managed to find control 87 I spent a few minutes checking that it was indeed in the wrong place and then went back to the finish to inform the planner/contoller to give them the opportunity to correct it during the event or at least give them the opportunity to check the control and learn for the future.

At the finish I asked if I could speak to the planner but was pointed in the direction of the organiser who told me to fill in a complaints form. I said I wasn't complaining just trying to be helpful and asked if they were aware that control 87 was in the wrong place - they rather brusquely told me that they weren't able to divulge that information, at which point I gave up. Not the most positive experience for me and perhaps if they'd corrected it they might have salvaged the Women's elite race.

[DJM]

Appendix A 7.6.3 states:

Should it become known that a control unit has failed, or been vandalised, the Planner should endeavour to replace the unit as soon as possible.

OK, this is about control units and not specifically about their placement, but the clear implication is that any problem with a control site should be rectified as soon as possible so that the smallest number of competitors is affected.