Southern Champs BKO

[Arnold]

Out of interest, does there HAVE to be a protest for the courses to be voided? Or can the organiser / controller decide by themselves that it's "just not fair" for the results to stand?

And if it's the former why are the organiser / controller even having a discussion, given that no protest appears to have been made?

(Also - geek comment that I can't believe I'm making - shouldn't the affected courses be removed from ranking points?)

And finally...it seems the issue affected less than 5% of all competitors, so the other 95% enjoyed great courses on great terrain (if a little damp!) and a great map so well done to all involved. Problems happen sometimes despite the best efforts of all involved and let's not forget that everyone's a volunteer even at level A races!

[GML]

And finally...it seems the issue affected less than 5% of all competitors, so the other 95% enjoyed great courses on great terrain (if a little damp!) and a great map so well done to all involved.

A non sequitur if ever I saw one!

(But still thanks to all those involved for putting on the event, especially given the conditions).

[graeme]

does there HAVE to be a protest...
technically, a Jury is only convened "If either the Controller or the Organiser does not agree with the protest" (BOF Rule 16.7).

Once long ago I made a protest/appeal at the JOK chasing sprint about a malfunctioning control. I was the planner - the affected competitor (a junior) didn't want to be the "bad guy".

When you start looking into this more closely, then you soon discover that "the least bad outcome" might not be removal of two split times ...

Which is why you should look into it more closely. In the case of M45, the winner was determined by the missing control and removing the leg doesn't switch any top placings. Just because something doesn't always work isn't a reason to ban it.

And finally...it seems the issue affected less than 5% of all competitors, so the other 95% enjoyed great courses on great terrain (if a little damp!) and a great map so well done to all involved. Problems happen sometimes despite the best efforts of all involved and let's not forget that everyone's a volunteer even at level A races!

Exactly so. Problems will happen, and forgetting to hang a control in the rush of the morning is completely understandable and excusable. Failing to reach a fair outcome in the leisure of the days after is not.

[DJM]

Out of interest, does there HAVE to be a protest for the courses to be voided? Or can the organiser / controller decide by themselves that it's "just not fair" for the results to stand?

Firstly, voiding could be the action taken by the Organiser as a result of a Complaint being made. The situation could be so clear cut that all agree with this and the Protest stage is never reached.

But there is no reason why the Organiser has to wait for a Complaint before taking action. He/she has the authority to do this independently as the extract from 31.2 (about Results) indicates:

If a serious problem has been identified and is found to have affected the outcome of a competition, then appropriate action must be taken.

Whilst this doesn't specifically say who takes the appropriate action it doesn't say that a Complaint/Protest is needed to trigger the action.

[Mrs H]

Could someone just clarify. Was the control stolen or was it not put out?

[easternmost?]

I was an early starter on M45L and affected by the missing control. After concluding that it was defiantly missing I carried on and had a pleasing run. I'm not too bothered by the outcome of the race itself and I've looked at the splits and can see how I compared with others on the course after the problem.

What will annoy me is if ranking points are generated from the results as published. These will stay in the tables for a year and I'll feel it to be unfair if I'm ranked lower than my rivals who were fortunate not to start early.

Despite the problem I enjoyed the event and found the numerous thickets towards the end a good challenge.

[Mrs H]

Could someone just clarify. Was the control stolen or was it not put out?

........also what rules do other federations have for these situations like in Sweden, France or Switzerland?

[sloaner]

Applying the rules gives two options then.....

1) The result stands and Ifor wins (although I know he is not impressed with that and has said he won't engrave the trophy with is name!)
2) Course void and no-one wins (losers include BKO planner etc. who otherwise planned what I thought was an excellent course)

The fairest result in this instance would be to remove the legs. Alan then becomes the winner and 2nd and 3rd remain as Ifor and Kevin Fielding (everyone happy)... but this is not an available option, therefore in my view the rules are wrong!!!

And whilst we at it, should 3rd place in M50 go to Clive H? or did he really punch a control 3km from the one he was supposed to punch?! (That's what the results state)

[graeme]

Ifor could always engrave the trophy with Alan's name

[ChristineV]

A very learned discussion (as always on Nopesport ).

Thank you to BKO and all the team for Sunday's event. I certainly had my money's worth (I DNF'd after 2 hrs 24, as it was getting very close to course closing time). I haven't been to Star Posts before; next time, I'll try and be a bit fitter. Lovely cakes from Podium Catering too.

[Roger]

2) Course void and no-one wins (losers include BKO planner etc. who otherwise planned what I thought was an excellent course)

I don't agree that taking the decision now to void M45 makes makes the planner a loser, particularly if the M50 results on the same course are allowed to stand.
Seven M45s, six M50s and one non-comp M40 on this particular course seem to have been affected. Tim Must (9th M45) also seems to have lost about five minutes. Tony Burton (8th) is the highest-placed M50 who's been credited with the control but he seems to have lost a minute at most, so there's an argument for letting M50 stand.
(Declaration of [dis-]interest: I ran M50 so would get some ranking points rather than none if the M50 results stood. But as my 'run' was a hobbling recuperation from a long-term injury I have no particular desire either way on whether the class should be ranked.)

And whilst we at it, should 3rd place in M50 go to Clive H? or did he really punch a control 3km from the one he was supposed to punch?! (That's what the results state)

I finished just after Clive. He was convinced he'd been to the correct control (well before he overtook me) but didn't have the back-up pin-prick. He was complaining about 'always getting disqualified with Emit', despite seeing the light flash. I didn't realise at the time that he'd been registered as punching 159 rather than 160. If 159 really is 3km away from 160 (which is only 100m from the previous control) then maybe his card needs replacing.

[MacMan]

Just to be clear the jury did not make the decision. As a member of said jury we were approached by a representative of the organiser who asked our view on the issue re the missing control.
Given the results at that time given by course (not class) we suggested that for the COURSE, the organiser may like to consider the option of allowing the results to stand.

Upon retuning home I have done lots of analysis and rereading of the new rules appendix A section 8.11 and thought long and hard about class vs course .... Mmmmmmm

[ifor]

I should put Kenny's name on the trophy as he was clearly the fastest M45+ around the course. None of the M45 have much to shout about... I was just happy to run well two days in a row.

[NeilC]

new rules

Worth noting that this is not a new rule. It's been around for quite a few years, albeit hiding in the electronic punching appendix.

It's difficult to get the balance between providing rules to cover many eventualities and having minimalist rules and giving officials greater discretion to make their own decisions.

In this example splits removal would almost certainly have given a fair result, however in another race removal could produce an even more unfair result. The problem will be the many shades of grey in between. Better then to have a defined rule to cover this circumstance? Unfortunately there appears to have been two misunderstandings/uncertainties about the rule on Sunday: whether it can apply to an individual age class within a course (I believe it can) and whether there has to be a minimum number of competitors affected in order to take action (the minimum number is 1).

[graeme]

It's difficult to get the balance between providing rules to cover many eventualities and having minimalist rules and giving officials greater discretion to make their own decisions.

How can rulemakers who don't know the facts can make a better decision than the jury, who do? It might be sensible to have a default no-leg-removal until

Upon retuning home I have done lots of analysis

but if a fair* outcome becomes clear the jury must apply the longstanding rule 6.1

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.

If the two were in conflict, I would place this rule ahead of the recommendation laid out in clause 3 of Appendix A, version 1.1, section 8.11.5.


* I'm not rising to Ifors bait about Kenny Leitch ... No .... Definitely not ... completely ignoring it.