Controllers conundrum - BOC incident

[Matt F]

Did it change significantly the WRE points of those who weren't affected? Given voiding the race makes no difference to the number of WRE points you got, what exactly are you achieving by not allowing other people (who's ranking points weren't unfair) to get any?

Why can't you see that this isn't about me, you seem to think it's me saying well if I can't have any points no-one should be allowed any. It's not about the WR points it's about the status of the event as a WRE. If a race is given WR status then very strict standards of fairness apply, I'm just asking the question - if the results of 16% of the competitors are significantly affected (I don't think anyone can argue with that) by an incident that makes their results unfair should an event retain it's WR status?

As for the UK cup it could make a massive difference to those athletes involved, if indeed anyone cares about the UK cup. I do.

[andypat]

I think the problem with voiding an event (or its status as a WRE event) is the knock on effect both for the participants and on the wider view of orienteering. If our premier O event is documented as a no result that doesnt look very good. BUT I think there is also too much focus on whats fair for the first few and not enough on the effect on the rest of the competitors who keep the sport going in general.

I find it hard to agree that if say someone removes a control and only GG is affected that is treated differently than if 5 2nd tier runners were affected. We need a solution that is fair to all not just the top few.

[LostAgain]

I find it hard to agree that if say someone removes a control and only GG is affected that is treated differently than if 5 2nd tier runners were affected. We need a solution that is fair to all not just the top few.

I believe the purpose of the BOC is to find the British Champion. The rest of us (2nd tier) are given an opportunity to run on top class terrain with courses planned and controlled to the best standards we have.

Hence our times tend to be significantly longer when the courses are planned to get Winning Times in the correct length.

The Olympics and other championships are not run for the "also rans".

The top guys were unaffected result and WR status should stand.

It could be argued the "pre-runners" were preparing the way for the top guys, bashing the way through and ensuring there are no miplaced controls before the highly ranked runners run.

[graeme]

This case is quite easy. I would not void the race. A large number of people ran a completely fair race and the top positions were not affected. It's the British Championships, and nobody doubts that the right man is British Champion.
Here I disagree with andypat : at an average event everyone is just as important as one another, but at a Championships the Champions are more important. The clue's in the title.

Its fairly easy to judge from time lost what effect it had, in terms of positions only 3 (?) people could reasonably claim to have lost places. The possibility of voiding legs is now well enough established that people should know to continue. If the control had been missing for everyone, I'd hope the legs would simply be removed. Charlie makes his point about packs forming, but the simple fact is that it always happens (e.g. rocky and craney ran round together this year, I was with James Williams a lot of the time)) and we've never voided a race or DQed anyone on that basis.

But Matt et al surely deserve a better formal outcome than "retired".

In the US they have a nice idea of a "Sporting Withdrawal" which, essentially, recognises when somebody has their run spoiled through no fault of their own - missing control, helping injured competitor etc. Also (I think) there's some effect on the ranking, a sw allows you to count the average of your top-5 results rather than 6 runs. A similar thing could be done in the UK Cup.

[graeme]

It could be argued the "pre-runners" were preparing the way for the top guys, bashing the way through and ensuring there are no misplaced controls before the highly ranked runners run.

I'd rather think of it as being about fairness again: all my peers on the course were bashing through the same sh*t as I was. All Doug's peers had the same tracks to follow. Given similar conditions I could have been 33rd, 25 mins down, not 33rd, 35mins down. So still 33rd: and that's fair enough.

[andypat]

[quote="graeme"]This case is quite easy. I would not void the race. A large number of people ran a completely fair race and the top positions were not affected. It's the British Championships, and nobody doubts that the right man is British Champion.
Here I disagree with andypat : at an average event everyone is just as important as one another, but at a Championships the Champions are more important. The clue's in the title.

quote]
Graeme - not sure its me you are disagreeing with here - the relevant BOF rules suggest this is the case for all races in the UK not just the Champs.

TBH I cant see the problem with voiding legs at all. If a leg isnt fair for all competitors then why cant it be voided even if the outcome in the original but unfair race might have been different?

They effectively did that in this years Grand National when the race was routed round two controls (fences) due to the dead horses. Now whos to say this didnt give an advantage to say an amateur jockey, on say, a horse who might not have got the trip (or fallen) if he'd had to jump two more fences?

Agree with the comments elsewhere about pressure not to complain. Any event in which there is pressure on competitors not to complain because it might upset the applecart doesnt seem fair to me.

[NeilC]

the relevant BOF rules suggest this is the case for all races in the UK not just the Champs.

From Appendix I - a clear distinction between championship and non-championship events

3.2.5 If a serious problem has been identified then a decision must be made as to what action to take. For level A events the following is recommended:
1) 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. In line with IOF policy, splits removal shall not be considered as an option.
2) If a serious problem is identified, but by using the criterion defined above, is not considered to have significantly affected the outcome of the race, then the results should be published without adjustment, other than to re-instate any competitor who failed to punch at a control that was missing or misplaced when they reached it.
For events at a lower level then the option to remove splits either side of a problem control, or to start or finish the race at an alternative point, can be considered as a possible solution to an affected race. The decision whether or not to adjust the results however is still not one that should be taken lightly. Removing splits can have dramatic effects on the outcome of the race and may not be justified if only a few competitors are affected.

[mappingmum]

An interesting discussion.

I am really uncomfortable with any rule or guideline which advises against any manual corrective action to restore fairness in a sporting competition unless the top x placings are affected or y% are affected by the issue.

Each competitor at the event has paid their ££ and deserves to be treated fairly and with respect by the officials.

[Becks]

But in this case the competitors were being treated fairly by the officials involved. Someone entirely random moved a control, and fairness was restored as promptly as possible. The likelihood is that the top six were not affected. We therefore still have a British Champion, and our top runners have the ranking points they need for decent starts at World Cup races and the like.

I agree with Graeme that saying retired in the results is bad. Can those that finished but didn't punch it at least be reinstated? (Were people actually following the no GPS WRE rule? That could be a way to check people were in the vicinity, though I'm sure they all were). For those who went back, they just have to accept that they did a great thing for the good of the Champs, and hopefully orienteering karma will come back and do something for them next time around. Eddie has most definitely done this, and it wasn't an easy decision from his AP log. Matt, you need to do this too. Did Thierry and co whinge at bringing whatshisface out of the forest that year? Sometimes jobby like this happens in these races. Misplaced controls, wrong descriptions etc are another bag, but this is a case of plain old bad luck. You did a good thing, stop making yourself look bad now.

[distracted]

TBH I cant see the problem with voiding legs at all. If a leg isnt fair for all competitors then why cant it be voided even if the outcome in the original but unfair race might have been different? They effectively did that in this years Grand National when the race was routed round two controls (fences) due to the dead horses.

Unless I've misunderstood you, even with this change, it is still the same course and race conditions for everyone... can't see how that compares to a missing control.

[Matt F]

Becks - stop making this personal, no-one else is. I'm merely asking questions about rules and participating in an interesting discussion about this incident and clarifying whether what has been done thus far is the correct and fair course of action. I can't see how anything I've written could be construed as whinging or making myself look bad.

[Red Adder]

I'm afraid I think all the comments that its OK not to void a course / take remdial action on certain legs as the people perceived to be the best before the start of the race were not affected to be arrogant nonsense. There are many cases in sport where someone was "come from nowhere" to be successful, often pressaging a very successful future career.

In last year's World Cup England "goal" against Germany could have made a big difference (it would have made 2-2). How would people have felt if accepted practice was the result was allowed to stand as England were s***e throughout the tournament but if Germany had suffered in the same way, the game would have been replayed as they were considered to be potential winners - because this is what some people are effectively arguing here.

Either you have a general rule that such a circumstance is "rub of the green" and don't void, or have rules that allow remedial action be taken to adjust the course (eg void legs / adjust times of those effected - whatever). But the application of those rules should never ever depend on who and who is not effected - that is not fair and to my mind seriously at odds with what should be the ethos of this or any other spoprt.

[andypat]

TBH I cant see the problem with voiding legs at all. If a leg isnt fair for all competitors then why cant it be voided even if the outcome in the original but unfair race might have been different? They effectively did that in this years Grand National when the race was routed round two controls (fences) due to the dead horses.

Unless I've misunderstood you, even with this change, it is still the same course and race conditions for everyone... can't see how that compares to a missing control.

Well as a competitor I would feel that voiding the legs either side of an affected control is as close to the same course and conditions for everyone as you can get. You can voice objections about the mental aspects and grouping etc, but at the end of the day I want to compete and I want a result.

As mapping mum has said we all pay dearly to compete in our sport. I simply feel that all competitors should be treated fairly, not some more fairly than others.

Matt - youre fine by me - interesting discussion - clearly some disparate views on here.

[mappingmum]

....I think all the comments that its OK not to void a course / take remdial action on certain legs as the people perceived to be the best before the start of the race were not affected to be arrogant nonsense.

where's the *like* button?!

[Adventure Racer]

you seem to think it's me saying well if I can't have any points no-one should be allowed any

Well that would be the most significant outcome if it was voided as a WRE. If that's not your intention, then maybe it's not such a sensible thing to suggest.

It's not about the WR points it's about the status of the event as a WRE. If a race is given WR status then very strict standards of fairness apply, I'm just asking the question - if the results of 16% of the competitors are significantly affected (I don't think anyone can argue with that) by an incident that makes their results unfair should an event retain it's WR status?

In which case the question becomes, what would be the advantage of it not retaining it's WRE status? Who would benefit? Remember the incident involved was something the organisor could have done nothing about, and could have happened at pretty much any event, not matter how well organised.