Lost for words

[gross2006]

Sorry... this is all total jobbie... control in wrong place... course void... no question:) Unless you are running in Disney Land

[gross2006]

I've never met a planner who doesn't tape controls, nor a controller who hasn't checked the tapes.

you've never met me then

[Guest]

Whilst I don't particularly like being on the receiving end of voided courses, I personally think that the default should be to void as it really is the only consistent way to be fair.

The only exception would possibly be on low key events (C5 / C4), where a bit of pragmatism and common sense can be brought to bear. However, in this event, the only alternative choice should be to let the results stand 'as is' if the error did not significantly alter the likely results e.g. at a recent mass start C5 event, the first 3/4 people got to one control before the person putting the control out... All the people affected still finished in the order they would have done anyway (the winner who was the most affected just had a smaller winning margin), so no-one complained and the results stood.

Taking legs out significantly alters the nature of the race and should not be done in my opinion. The only acceptable use of this technique is for timed out crossings of busy roads on health & saftety gounds. But this is known about by everybody before the start of the race, so isn't an issue of fairness.

A hypothetical scenario: On the following map of the nordic championships http://www.noc2005.org/maps/Long_M21.gif, say control 15 was in the wrong place... Removing the legs either side would remove about 20% of the course distance, and would make a mockery of calling the event a 'classic' distance race. Doesn't sound like a fair solution.

Another question is "How far out does a control have to be before it is in the wrong place, and the course is voided / the leg times removed?" e.g. 'ditch end' - if the control was 2m / 5m / 10m / 20m from the exact end... Would probably lead to more use of vague control descriptions to allow for slight misplacements e.g. just 'ditch' rather than 'ditch bend'. This is also counter productive.

The control being placed in the wrong position is something that shouldn't happen, but on occasion does. However, the issue of vandalism gives a similar problem, but is outside the control of the organising team, so can't really be avoided

[fish]

Have said this before, I'm in favour (for big events) of either void the course or leave the results to stand if it is not a "significant" problem. For big events a jury should be able to figure out what significant means.

I just don't like the idea of removing the splits, (or even worse the occaionally used - removing time from some competitors who have been affected) never have, and probably never will.

fish

[Guest88]

Don't think I'm saying anything very original, but I'm against taking the splits out of the results.

I just don't think it is far-fetched that some people will take it very easy on the way to the control after the missing control, potentially even stopping for 5 minutes and waiting for someone a bit faster to follow round the rest of the course. Once 1 to 2 people do it, it could catch on - and this would, in the words of the op, cause a decline in value to the sport.

For non-elite events I would prefer to see the results stand, but with a disclaimer on the top of the results saying that Very sorry, control was missing/stolen, some competitors affected more than others. Leave it to the competitors as to whether to take their results that day seriously or not.

For area champs, area relays, inter-club competitions, it won't always be fair, but I don't think that voiding is often an option here, as too much effort to re-run the event.

[tokoloshe]

At events where there is a misplaced control nobody on the courses affected is going to be pleased and the planner and controller are likely to be even less happy with the situation. Between them they failed to provide what their customers expected. However as has been said these mistakes do happen. I had the experience a few years ago, in the first few years of SI, to control a Badge Event in early spring when the control boxes were being used for an event on the Saturday, with the consequence that some controls were put out in the dark and one of these was put in the wrong place. The correct site was taped and had been checked but the tape was not found. Despite starting to check controls in the dark I did not manage to get to them all before 10.00 (elite legs would help me) and the wrongly placed control was one of the few not to be checked.

When the error came to light and the control site checked the decision had to be taken about what to do. The full courses affected were clearly not a fair competition but we had the technical ability to take out the two affected legs and after contact with technical committee over a week that is what was finally done. We decided it was the least worse thing to do and competitors I am sure judged their result against the context of having two legs removed. Would they have felt any better if the course had been voided – I don’t think so and the absence of any complaints afterwards goes some way to supporting the decision.

Would I do the same again? I don’t know. In an ideal world I would make sure there were two sets of boxes and enough in the planning controlling team to ensure that everything was checked and double checked but would that improve things …..

I did hear rumour that one of the UK C1 events this year had a control moved from the taped site on the morning of the event because despite 4 official checking it it seemed correct. Saved by the control hanger being a good enough orienteer to notice.

[Guest]

Controls should never be in the wrong place?

Remember this is not just about elite courses. I and my co-planner are about to put out over 120 controls for a major event. The sites are all taped and checked. The kites will located and then checked. The SI units will then be put out. So at least 5 visits to each site.

So, it is impossible to have a control in the wrong place? Well, we are working hard to achieve it but mistakes happen in all walks of life. Often just mistakes, not incompetence or idiocy as seems to be implied by some posters.

Tired planner.

[FatBoy]

Mistakes happen for sure, but I think the frequency recently has been quite high - hence discussing this removing split/voiding issue for about the third time in recent weeks. I for one accept mistakes happen, and they are probably by enlarge mistakes not incompetence, but I do object to the number. The bigger the event the more cross checking as you say so why the number of mistakes recently? In this computer age there should be less reason for things like getting codes wrong between courses etc so why the upturn in errors?

[Kitch]

Once the point has been reached where one is seriously considering removing a control from the time, then the fundamental nature of the course and race has been altered. You cannot recreate the race - the misplaced control has introduced too many variables.

What might happen if you have a control in the wrong place ?
1. Competitor runs round like crazy, up and down the hillside trying to find the control, getting knackered in the process and so is unable to complete the remainder of the course in the time they otherwise would have done.

2. competitor thinks 'blow this' sits down and has a good long rest, and a good long look at the rest of the course, in fact they plan in detail how to complete the rest of the course. They then run it much faster than they otherwise would have done, because with all that planning ahead it bacame a bit of a cross country run.

What I fundamentally object to is making this a 'rule' and pretending that everything else about the race is ok.
It simply is not

If you make this a standard rule then the standard re-action for a competitor will be; sit down, plan the rest of the course and blaze round in a faultless demonstration of cross country running.

Once a control is in the wrong place you can't pretend that the results, any results, have any meaning.

[LostAgain]

I would support the use of removal of leg times for C4 & C5 events. These events are the training ground for new planners, controllers and organisers, mistakes will happen and although inconvenient should not be over stated.

For higher class events I would support the voiding of courses and the refunding of entry fee to all those affected. The financial penalty being an important part of the focussing of attention on getting it right.

[Neil M35]

Following the similar debate a week or so ago I did the research on the last 6 months events – this isn’t very thorough as I only decided what I was looking for half way through. I have looked at all regional events and above, plus Compass Sport Cup matches since the beginning of January – roughly 45 events. Of those there were 5 where the controllers/planners comments acknowledged that a mistake had been made, so roughly 1 event in 9. I didn’t find comments for every event.

The 5 events do not include the WM relay, because I wasn’t going to check every event at that level, and also doesn’t include the Scottish Champs where there is no acknowledgement of an error (and since nobody protested, I suppose that is fair enough ). No acknowledement of an error does not mean that there was nothing wrong with an event.

In 4 of the events the control was simply put in the wrong place – there are no details for 2 of them but the other two specify a similar nearby feature. The remaining event transposed 2 controls, and the official comments suggest that there may have been interference by a non-orienteer.

Only one of the 5 errors resulted in a voided course (no prizes for guessing which one). 3 events removed the before and after legs. The transposed controls were corrected and only affected 5 early starters – the results for this event were not amended.

I am not convinced that the frequency of misplaced controls is going up. Maybe it is, but it is certainly much easier to find out about them and with Nopesport it is much more likely that you become aware of debates about events you have not been to.

Putting controls in the wrong place – it is always going to happen, but hopefully the frequency can reduce. I have deliberately not included details of any of the events because I am not trying to hold previous planners to account – just to point out to future planners that this is how often it happens.

Removing the before and after legs – I don’t like it and I wouldn’t like to see it at any major events, but it seems to be accepted at Regional level.

[Guest]

Quote from Neil : I have deliberately not included details of any of the events because I am not trying to hold previous planners to account.

and I agree that we don't want to hang out the planners and controllers to dry. However, in order to stop such mistakes we need to understand why they happened. How is it that both the Planner and Controller ended up taping the wrong site ? Were all the best practice processes followed such as independent visits. Or was time running out so short cuts were made.

It would be nice to see genuine explanations as to how the errors occured at these events. Then by taking a look across numbers of events we may be able to reduce the chance of such mistakes happening in the future.

[Ed]

without knowing which events Neil's analysed, I'd guess the reason for one of the misplaced controls was the fact that the tapes for the control sites were buried in snow and so the control had to be positioned again from scratch as it was being hung and no doubt in a short time-frame

[stodge]

Putting controls in the wrong place – it is always going to happen

but why shoud we accept this? at C3 and above....

I think we should be striving for perfection - not just acceptance of the problems - what happens in scandinavia.....

also

As I have said before it always sees to comes down to excuses, why can't people just accept that they got it wrong, apologise and try to make sure it doesnt happen again.


With regards to missing legs out of the results - I go with the view OK for C4 and below but not C3 and above - there is too much scope for taking advantage of the situation.

[FatBoy]

I've never met a planner who doesn't tape controls, nor a controller who hasn't checked the tapes.

you've never met me then

Or me.

In my opinion the way to do it is for the planner and controller to visit all the sites TOGETHER, agree everything about the site including how high to hang it etc - making notes if memory isn't good. If the map seems dodgy then revise it, then revisit TOGETHER with the updated map.

Then the planner puts ALL the controls out - with a team of donkeys (M21's) if necessary. The controller checks the location and ideally an assistant controller double checks (who was present at the initial visits).

This method was brought about partly by necessity because having planned on Merthyr Mawr 3 times where you can't tape (insulation tape not permitted and rabbits eat masking tape), but also from experience of doing things the wrong way. Last event at Merthyr Mawr the controller moved one control - "You put it where we agreed but the wind was destroying it so I moved it lower".