JK protest

[Mr timE]

Punching starts are a better option all round, surely if someone regularly turns up late they will soon get spotted anyway.

There is another option for national/championship events which are the ones that the rules say have to be timed. Competitors are still given start times as normal but if someone turns up late then just note their card number and let them go in the next available slot, the stats team can then just add on the extra time, based on their original time and they don't gain an advantage. If the delay is considered acceptable then punching start time stands.

Alternatively late comers could be held until the last runner has gone and then sent out 15 mins after the last starter in a mass start and declared as non-comp, at least they get their run and can compare their time with others.

[Tatty]

Back in the mid seventies I can remember an elite orienteer arriving without a whistle for his start and having to go back for it. On his return he had to wait for the next available start, which was right at the end. He had no alteration to his start time just an extra 2 hours on his running time!!

[gg]

Sound a bit like something we were talking about the other day Mharky?

[Tatty]

It wasn't Mharky, but won't embarass who it was. They don't read Nopesport!

[mharky]

Don't worry dear, I know what GG is talking about

I think Graeme's idea of just calculating what time they would have taken, and then removing any timeloss is absolutely rediculous.

You do not know what happened on the leg, they could have made a howling error, then found the feature (with no control) looked around for a bit more, and then decided is wasn't there, and so continued with the course.

One can not apply statitics to a situation which involves behaviour. Orienteering is more complicated than average speeds.

Atleast removing the splits is used defined results, we know what people took on the course, we are not just making informed estimations.

[graeme]

One can not apply statitics to a situation which involves behaviour.

Funny how actuaries and insurance companies make so much money isn't it.

[Paulo]

Funny how actuaries and insurance companies make so much money isn't it.

Even an actuary wouldn't try and use statistics like that though. The method really doesn't seem fair - doesn't it depend on how many mistakes you make elsewhere on the course, as to how long the method thinks you 'should' have taken for that particular leg? Not sure how it is calculated exactly, but I think complex mathematical formulae is not the way to decide on a course result.

No I think the fairest option is removing the splits - not an ideal option, but still often the fairest available when the only alternative is voiding the course - I'm sure a poll of orienteers would prefer to have a couple of voided legs than an entire voided course.