VOIDING OF COURSES

[EddieH]

I've just read your entry for Thursday morning Graeme - You could not have put it better.

What the Void at all costs brigade seem to ignore is that for 99% of people, not matter how seriously they compete this is a fun activity - no result makes the whole experience including travel and time a total hollow waste.

I had mixed feelings about the jury decision at WMOC is that with 2 days of qualifying, were day 1 voided everyone would be starting day 2 on an equal footing and therefore the event would be valid in the end.

[Gross]

What the Void at all costs brigade seem to ignore is that for 99% of people, .

How big is this 'void at all cost' brigade??? I don't seem to remember seeing any posts that say 'void at all costs'.... seen a few that say... if it's an elite championship trying to produce a national elite champion then if the course is unfair it should be voided! Same people saying that have had (mostly) the opinion that in non-championship races... eg holiday events and non elite classes then make the decision to suit the circumstances.

[EddieH]

Precisely Gross - in the British Champs you are in tghe Void at all costs brigade as you ignore the fact that no-one is disputing that Jenny was clearly the best Elite lady on the day. So why take it away from her for didactic reasons?

[Gross]

I'm not making any comment / judgement on BEOC this year as I wasn't there.... but if an Elite Championship is deemed unfair then it should be voided.

[Adventure Racer]

Unfair to whom? To the winner and anybody who might have reasonably beaten them, or simply to somebody in 20th place?

[Gross]

Fair to the concept of elite orienteering competition. (If it was cykling then I'd void everything as the entire sport seems to be riddled with unfairness:))

[Adventure Racer]

I think you may need to explain more about this concept of elite orienteering competition, with particular reference to why the main objective isn't finding the correct worthy winner.

[roadrunner]

From the guidelines for the British Championships...

Rule 1.

Purpose: (a) To find the British Champion in each relevant age class.

And it's not rule one for nothing. The purpose is not to determine who is 16th best, whether the planner can get the distances right, or to produce a fair course (which is, of course, impossible). The purpose is to determine worthy British Champions.

While I don't for a moment dispute that, it's clear from the format of the event that it isn't the only purpose - otherwise, why would we have short, "B" or colour-coded courses, since everyone is agreed that the winners of these are not British Champions? Elite-only championships are a different matter, of course.

So I think it's fair to consider whether those who could not have won were affected. Perhaps there are other options than simply voiding all the results, though. For example, in a 10-mile road race in 1976, the leading runner was mis-directed by a marshal and so ran the wrong route, finishing at about the same time as the second-placed runner. The latter conceded that he would not have won, and so the top two runners were given the agreed placings but no race times (although those lower down the field had their times recorded). In orienteering terms, a similar approach could be to void a course for ranking points (or eliminate the affected runners from the calculation of these), while letting the placings stand for the purpose of deciding the winner, if this is not in dispute.

[mharky]

Don't make references to other sports. This isn't road running, it's orienteering. At least, it should be.

If the results stand, then it is an absolute disaster for orienteering in Britain.

[roadrunner]

I don't see what's wrong in making comparisons with other sports - though I certainly agree that we shouldn't just copy them blindly, since orienteering does indeed have its own special features. But my main point was that there might be other options than those already discussed in this thread ad nauseum (i.e. letting the results stand in their entirety, removing some legs, and voiding the course) that could come closer to meeting the conflicting requirements of different interested parties. Surely that's worth exploring?

[Gross]

why the main objective isn't finding the correct worthy winner.

Who said it wasn't the main objective of an elite competition.... certainly not me!!!

[rob f]

Intrestingly on day 5 on M20L/35L and W18A/20L they removed a control from a course when it was mis placed, differing from bof rules. This caused several people to lose points they had gained (and even positions for some)

[Gross]

Nothing at all wrong with that.... it's a holiday event and not the most important classes.

[greywolf]

This caused several people to lose points

...but not as many points as if the courses had been voided...

. it's a holiday event and not the most important classes.

...well they're the most important classes to those running them .. but basically i agree, unfortunately the 29th June guidance from the Rules Group doesn't appear to make a distinction between types of events.

[Spookster]

Nothing at all wrong with that.... it's a holiday event and not the most important classes.

Events should follow the rules, regardless of whether it's a holiday event!

I understand a protest has been made about the removal of leg splits at Spey 2007, as it's not in accordance with the Rules Group guidance a couple of months ago, as published on British Orienteering website.

And M35 matters to some of us!