INT SoSOL5 Riccarton

[smf]

I enjoyed today's green course unfortunately people still ignore the forbidden to cross features.

Forbidden to cross wall at control 7.

Control 7.JPG (14.39 KiB) Viewed 5062 times

Forbidden to cross hedge at control 10.

Control 10.JPG (12.22 KiB) Viewed 5062 times

The response from the person (a Nopesport poster who should know better!) crossing the hedge at control 10 , was that it didn't matter as it was a cross country race. The event final details said "Hedges should not be crossed".

[andy]

Trying to enforce this kind of thing is a total nonsense and people getting annoyed about it afterwards is just daft. We should be trying to instill a much more relaxed approach to this problem in the uk. Who really cares if someone gains a few seconds by crossing something that is clearly crossable, as long as they aren't doing it intentionally. As was said at the Scottish Sprints the controller wasn't going to dsq anyone unless they 'owned up', what kind of a situation is that to be in? There isn't any point in disqualifying anyone for these kind of infringements unless it is possible to be 100% sure you are disqualifying everyone who's done it.

I know someone who wrote on their training log that they had crossed an uncrossable at the Edinburgh City race but wouldn't have been pleased if he had be dsq'd for it because I knew he was faster than me and deserved to have his run count. Similar situation at the Scottish Sprints where many people were guilted into declaring themselves dsq for something that wasn't clear on the ground. Both of these two today were most definitely crossable (the hedge by anyone) and if it was some permissions issue they should have been taped, mapped as crossable or marked with a very clear purple line. I'm not even sure if the map today was ISSOM...

If an event is a high enough standard to merit actually enforcing these kind of things then they deserve to be manned, taped or mapped accurately. If it's not a high enough level of event then it's simply not worth it.

[smf]

Trying to enforce this kind of thing is a total nonsense and people getting annoyed about it afterwards is just daft.

It was the response to my comment "Did you know you had just crossed a forbidden to cross feature" rather than the act of the crossing it that annoyed me. I was trying to educate the person involved.

I'm not even sure if the map today was ISSOM...

Yes, it was, as per the note on the map "Map symbols (ISSOM 2007)" The map legend also said "(forbidden to cross)" in red overprint next to each forbidden to cross item.

[Big Jon]

You should have travelled to the real orienteering event at Balnagowan in Deeside - not a hedge in sight (crossable or uncrossable, either size or legally), no quibbles about OOB features etc. Just plain straight forward runnable forest with interesting courses.

[greywolf]

Sorry Andy, but that's crap. You seem to be saying that it's OK to cheat if it's not an important event. It really doesn't matter whether a feature is physically crossable (and after all there are very few features that are completely uncrossable to a determined person) - we can all run through flowerbeds (or private gardens) but that doesn't make it acceptable in competition, whether or not we are doing it "intentionally" (and if you thought judging a competitor's Britishness was difficult just try making decisions on a competitor's intentions). Nor is it always possible or sensible to festoon the competition area with barrier tape or cover the map with purple lines. Yes, features do need to be mapped correctly, but if they are then competitors need to obey instructions.

[frog]

The control 7 example was obvious, control 10 took more looking at and I used my magnifier on that as it looked a lowish hedge and I wondered if it was mid green, I think thin dark green lines on a yellow background can look paler than they are. I decided it was dark as it was the same colour as the obviously dark green hedge it ran into at the north west hedge t junction, but can understand how someone could accidentally cross it thinking it was mid green. Not sure how you could clarify it further, the final details did say hedges should not be crossed, but I'd read the final details and my brain hadn't turned that into the obvious "all hedges are dark green" so can understand others getting muddled. I think ISSOM events are always going to be a bit like this.
I still enjoy them.

[mharky]

Even from the low quality scans, it looks to me like the hedge at 10 is not the ISSOM symbol for impassable hedge. It looks to thin (should be same as high wall/fence, 0.4mm) and too light in colour.

Compare it to the hedges running SW/NE to the N & S of those buildings... is it the same?

Also; the final details are not very explicit. They make no mention of ISSOM specification maps and ISSOM rules prevailing on what was seemingly a cross-country event. And they say hedges SHOULD not be crosses. You really MUST be more absolute with instructions like this.

Good the hear the map has been updated though, it was getting a little old in places.

[andy]

Sorry Andy, but that's crap. You seem to be saying that it's OK to cheat if it's not an important event.

No, I'm not. Are you saying it's acceptable to DSQ some people for crossing an oob and not others who have done exactly the same thing?
I'm saying that where it is ambiguous (and impossible to do anything about it) there shouldn't be any uproar / moans on nopesport about it. It's extremely annoying to have a race where you know other people broke the rules but decided not to do dsq themselves and you have done (which happened at the Scottish Sprints). Until something can be done to make it fair for everyone, like should happen at major events, let's just ignore it. If there is a specific reason why something shouldn't be crossed then it should be taped to make it obvious or manned so that all those breaking the rules get banned.

There's an interesting part of Paul Radcliffe's biography where, in a major cross country race, there was ambiguity about where the course went. The leader went the wrong way and ended up coming 2nd because of it. I'm sure the result stood too (I might be wrong but it was similar to this, can't be bothered checking because the book is in the loft!). If something like that can't be policed in a cross country race then what hope does orienteering have?

graeme wrote a great post about it before his JK sprint in Livingston, if it wasn't one specific wall that was going to manned he didn't want to know about it because it really didn't matter.

[mharky]

Andy, you are saying that a rule should only be enforced if it can be enforced equally across everyone. Although the sentiment is nice, in reality it is impossible. For some things this works; electronic punching means we all have to visit every control in the correct order. Simple. However, what about drugs testing? UKAD have been known to test at events, but they have neither the time, money or desire to test everyone there. That makes it unfair because if you are elite you are subject to these tests, but punters are not and therefore can take as many drugs as they want.

[mharky]

You could also say the same thing for pretty much every law or rule in any sport or just in life. The majority of rules and laws can only be enforced up to a point due to the means observing the infringement and then executing the punishment.

A good quote from Mark Cavendish after someone accused him of holding onto team cars during the mountains:

"If I stop for a piss, if I crash and change a wheel, anything I do, I have a commissaire on me. There's always TV cameras on me. I have an ice-cream truck with me, I have a marching band following me. If it was possible to cheat, I would be caught."

[greywolf]

We should be trying to instill a much more relaxed approach to this problem in the uk.

No, we should be trying to make sure it's done right, not having a freeforall. Yes the final details may be poorly phrased (but it's what the map says that matters), and yes, on SMF's scan the hedge colour looks a bit odd (but I don't have the map so I'm not going to judge it) and yes from the results it's not clear if it was a supposed to be a middle or long race but the answer (if there's an issue) is to do things better, not worse

Are you saying it's acceptable to DSQ some people for crossing an oob and not others who have done exactly the same thing?

What mharky said

[andypat]

Is this a private argument or can anyone join in?

I enjoyed todays event. One of the strengths of the SoSOL series is its variety. In fact I was enjoying my run so much it wasnt until I was heading to control 7 (above) that I noticed the map was ISSOM! Appreciate I am on dangerous ground agreeing with Mharky again but I thought with hindsight it might have warranted a mention in the final details too, particualrly since it wasnt a designated sprint/city race.

I'd the same trouble figuring out the hedge at 10 (my 9) but I saw a route round it as didnt want to chance it. Uncrossable black/green linear features are definiftely not as clear as wall/fences in ISSOM

I should mention I took a direct route to 6 (thicket in a car park) through some fight which ended up in an unmapped hedge which I had to crawl under. It was only on the way to the next control (see above) that I realised I may have done a bad thing. However I checked at download and the guys seemed happy enough sinece it wasnt mapped as black green.

[frog]

Yes, I squished through that gap in a hedge as well, along with a bloke in front of me. It was a big gap in the corner of the hedge though and as it wasn't mapped I decided it didn't count, although it probably should as it was a hedge. Not sure what the official line on unmapped uncrossable features is.

[spur]

That piece of fight ending in a hedge andypat mentions was certainly mapped as passable. I heard of someone who was put off in this area by another person (not the topic author) incorrectly advising them they had crossed an 'uncrossable', and then messed up the next control distracted !

Thanks to all involved for today's event, I enjoyed the course.

[andy]

No, we should be trying to make sure it's done right, not having a freeforall.

I agree entirely!

But, when it is ambiguous, what do we do? As far as I can see the only thing that's happened after the Scottish Champs and now this event has been to moan about it on 'm'opesport. Which is not the right way forward, it makes the organiser/planner/mapper/controller feel bad and doesn't achieve anything other than put them off getting involved again.

As the IOF level controller at the Scottish Sprints said there wasn't anything he could do other than encourage people to come forward to self DSQ. He's right, but it's a totally daft situation as there are always going to be people who don't own up. What's wrong here? Is it this kind of thing not covered in controlling qualifications? Why are we getting it wrong so often?