Boc non disqualifications

[mykind]

The "overprinting" on Routegadget is generally not exactly the same as on the maps. If you compare your own course with the version on Routegadget, you'll probably find that the control numbers are in different places and that bent lines will be as straight. Certainly this is the case with course 19, which is the map I have here.

Also true that on the competition maps the lines were broken where they crossed the purple- overprinted fences But they are not broken on Routegadget. I'm not clear why we cannot dq people for apparently achieving the impossible. Believe me nobody runs almost 1 minute faster than Pete Haines over a 3min leg. 300m in 1min 49 on that terrain? Seems unlikely

[andy]

achieving the impossible

Seems unlikely

hmm, those are very different things.

[maprun]

Andy, nowhere in the rules does it require decisions by the organiser or race jury to be based on proof, it's an orienteering event not a Court of Law.

IMO disqualification has nothing to do with the effect on the race and the winner, or top 3-6 and applies regardless of the effect on the results.

IMO the analysis soley against Pete Haines time is flawed Andypat. The analysis should be against the top four runners. I come up with the same 10 runners as Eddie and an eleventh when you look at Routegadget (others apart from Eddie who took part have the same view). There could be more of course but IMO it should not make any difference to a decision, which if no one has got back to Eddie might still be in process!

[EddieH]

I have now had a reply.

The controller seems to think that the only alternative to letting things stand is to void the course, as he thinks that these runners might possibly have achieved these times and therefore he has no proof.

So be it, but it doesn't look good and it will just perpetuate and probably increase the very casual attitude many orienteers have to OOB.

[King Penguin]

I have long believed that voiding a leg should be a legitimate option even at level A events, where appropriate.
This was reinforced at a JK some years ago where I lost many minutes searching for a control which had been stolen, leaving not a trace, not even the tape. Later starters did not suffer in the same way, as the control was replaced. It was said there that as the top-placed runners were not affected / would not have changed then no action was required. The last thing I wanted was the course to be voided. If we have a "sport for all" then we should take the action which is most appropriate for the majority, and I believe that voiding the leg should be one of the options which can be considered.

[Snail]

But in this case voiding a leg doesn't really achieve anything helpful. It may well change the results, and in addition doesn't bring home the message to anyone who crossed the fence that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they didn't deliberately cheat then they did it through ignorance, and if so are just as likely to do the same thing at the next event.

[andypat]

IMO the analysis soley against Pete Haines time is flawed Andypat. The analysis should be against the top four runners.

Why 4 though - I'm not really trying to analyse anything - tbh Peter Haines could have jumped the fence for all I know. All I was trying to suggest was that I dont this as a black and white issue - what is an impossible time?

I'm not for voiding the leg though - this isnt a case of the map being wrong or control in wrong place. Voiding the leg excuses the misdemeanor and is worse than doing nothing IMO.

[maprun]

I doubt those involved could run these times on taped routes fresh. Some of them were running nearly 50% quicker than the fastest of the top four mid-race. The controller ought to speak to the M60s on the course if he needs to fully understand the unreasonableness of his belief, or better still those who "sprinted flat out mid-race" for their explanation.

Perhaps the matter should be passed onto the jury, can Graeme be in on it?

[DJM]

The controller seems to think that the only alternative to letting things stand is to void the course

The controller ought to speak to the M60s on the course

I'm sorry, but it is NOT the Controller's decision - in the first instance, it is the Organiser's.

If this generates an official complaint, then it is still the Organiser who decides (16.3 "The Organiser is the adjudicator of a complaint").

If the Organiser's adjudication is rejected by the complainant, then he/she may make a Protest against the adjudication which is handled jointly by the Organiser and the Controller.

If they both uphold the Protest, then all is well and "they must take the appropriate action" (16.6), but if one or both do not, then the issue goes to the appointed Jury who make the final decision (16.7). NB An appeal may be lodged against the Jury's decision (16.8 ) but this happens only very rarely.

Note that the Controller's role in the whole process is NOT central and his/her view must not be taken as definitive!

[graeme]

I'm sorry, but it is NOT the Controller's decision - in the first instance, it is the Organiser's.

And I'm sorry because, there is no check that the organiser even knows the rules*, whereas you can't control BOC without passing three controller courses (not talking about BOC2016 here, but we are looking at outsourcing the organisation). It's a stupid rule. though not as stupid as it was at WOC when we didn't actually have an organiser...
* and is generally super-busy and hassled.

[Snail]

Since this was apparent a formal protest it is possible that it was the jury's decision that was communicated back, and this could be done via the controller / organiser.

Alternatively if some people don't know the rules it is equally possible that the jury hasn't yet met. In which case the protest is still "live", and the organiser should even now convene the jury to come to a decision.

[yted]

Lots of things going wrong here:
1. They shouldn't have done it - it was absolutely clear on the maps.
2. They shouldn't have insulted the intelligence of others by assuming they wouldn't be found out.
3. They should since have disqualified themselves if they did it accidentally as they will have realised as soon as they studied their routes/splits afterwards.
4. The organiser/jury should have disqualified them - them being the ones that based on their speed of running on the rest of the course could not reasonably have produced such a fast split. They can always appeal afterwards and argue their case.
5. BO should be getting involved and telling people it is getting involved at the highest level as the whole integrity of the sport is in question. Should I start the next British Champs race knowing that I can only win if I cheat? And that if I cheat in a sneaky way so no one actually sees me I'll get away with it?

[buzz]

I quite often use golfing analogies within orienteering since both my golf and orienteering often involve zig-zagging around in woods. When it comes to assuring fair play they both have the same problem of individuals competing out of sight of each other.

In golf the solution is a unofficial code of conduct which requires each player to be scrupulous in adhering to the rules and declare their own penalty shots as appropriate at risk of shame and humiliation if caught cheating. Perhaps orienteering could learn a thing or two.

A few ideas to help us move in that direction:

Use something analogous to signing a scorecard in golf so that competitors have to declare a valid run.
Use time penalties rather than disqualification for accidental indiscretions that are reported later.
Name and shame anyone caught cheating who doesn't declare an indiscretion.
Ensure adherence to the rules is taken seriously for everyone not just the medal winners.

[Gnitworp]

I
A few ideas to help us move in that direction:

Use something analogous to signing a scorecard in golf so that competitors have to declare a valid run.
Use time penalties rather than disqualification for accidental indiscretions that are reported later.
Name and shame anyone caught cheating who doesn't declare an indiscretion.
Ensure adherence to the rules is taken seriously for everyone not just the medal winners.

.... plan courses that don't invite cheating.

[graeme]

Whoa, steady on!
1. They shouldn't have done it - it was absolutely clear on the maps.
Agreed. The error is entirely the fault of competitor. They should be DQed.

2. They shouldn't have insulted the intelligence of others by assuming they wouldn't be found out.
The controller thinks those times are possible, so its you who is insulting his intelligence. The competitors are just "playing to the whistle".

3. They should since have disqualified themselves if they did it accidentally as they will have realised as soon as they studied their routes/splits afterwards.
Maybe, but some people don't study their splits, some people don't know all the rules and (in my experience) its often quite hard to persuade organisers to DQ you. - Typical response is "Lots of others did the same, nobody protested, I'm not going to punish you for being honest, and I'm very busy so please leave me alone"

4. The organiser/jury should have disqualified them - them being the ones that based on their speed of running on the rest of the course could not reasonably have produced such a fast split. They can always appeal afterwards and argue their case.
Yes, but in the opinion of the controller, "them" was nobody. So that's exactly what happened

5. BO should be getting involved and telling people it is getting involved at the highest level as the whole integrity of the sport is in question. Should I start the next British Champs race knowing that I can only win if I cheat? And that if I cheat in a sneaky way so no one actually sees me I'll get away with it?
I don't think you should call people cheats just because they broke the rules. Consider for example rule 2.4 "Individual – the competitor competes independently." Guess what? on maybe half the controls I didn't compete independently - I used other people to find the flag. I'll bet you did too. We broke the rules in a way that we got away with it - but nobody calls us cheats, far less DQs us!
Recently, I was DQed for missing out a control - quite right too, I broke the "go to all controls" rule - and I even tried to go through download. Fair game for andypat to mock, but not call me a cheat.
Labelling DQed people as cheats is supercounterproductive. It just leads to juries not wanting to make the right decision.