BOC/BRC appeals

[roadrunner]

It will always rely on a competitor feeling agrieved at some point in their run to lodge a protest after they have finished. The jury can only find out about a problem if it has been identified.

Usually, yes, but not always. I can think of two occasions where the problem could have been identified without a protest being made - both at past relay events.

In one case, someone protested about two controls being too close: this could have been identified from the map and checked (to see if the features/codes could have been confused). In the other case, on the ad-hoc class, the "light green" and "green" legs were swapped, which must surely have affected the results, although no-one protested. I would have thought that this could have been identified from the results system, compared against the leg allocations.

While I think that there should be strong guidelines on how a jury should handle a protest, I don't think it can be black and white - for precisely the reason quoted by JEP (a competitor taking deliberate action to get a course voided).

[PG]

Red Adder wrote
a large number of people are fervently against using [EMIT and SI] in the two circumstances when it would help sort out problems by either removing the legs round a dodgy control site or proving whether somebody really did visit a site.

I don’t understand why a large number of people are against voiding.

The BOF judgment in this case says "It is impossible to predict how the overall results were affected by the wrongly placed (individual) or missing (relay) controls, and therefore to remove the leg splits would not necessarily provide a fairer result than the finishing order on the day."

It then goes on to say:
"Guidance for officials at future events is that, even if there is a problem, leg split times should not be removed from the final results."

It seems to me that removing leg times is no less unfair than counting the final score at a football match when a major problem means that only 75 minutes of play were possible, even if a star player had been on the subs bench for most of the match.

As others on this thread have said there are is unfairness in every event, even if only first vs. last start. So we have to set a “bar” – some unfairness is considered ‘minor’ and the event can have a result, others types are ‘major’ so require that a result cannot be produced.

I accept that it is slightly unfair to void one or two legs, but the judgment does not justify its decision. What is it about voiding legs that makes it so unfair that it cannot be employed?

[SJC]

I don’t understand why a large number of people are against voiding.

and I don't understand why so many people are in favour. No-one has yet been able to convince me that any competitor benefits from voiding a course (other than those who get some satisfaction from the thought that if they didn't win then neither should anyone else).

It seems to me that removing leg times is no less unfair than counting the final score at a football match when a major problem means that only 75 minutes of play were possible, even if a star player had been on the subs bench for most of the match.

Removing leg times is more akin to reviewing the match afterwards and deducting a goal because it was clear from the video replay that the player was offside.

[distracted]

...we have used a vast amount of time and effort developing SI and Emit but a large number of people are fervently against using it [in] circumstances when it would help sort out problems by either removing the legs round a dodgy control site...

As far as I'm aware, the fact that the systems provide split times is an added benefit, and not the reason they were initially developed. In fact, at the major events then the system's timing is not relied upon; an external timing source is used. The e-punch is there simply to quickly confirm that a competitor has visited all of the controls and in the correct order

[note : in motor rallying they quite happily void a stage if circumstances dictate and still declare an overall winner]

Yes, but in that situation each stage exists independently of one another. That's similar to saying that in cricket, a one-day series result can still be declared even if a match is abandoned for whatever reason. Your key word there is "overall". Fifteen years ago, a British Champion wasn't the overall winner of each leg added together, with each leg raced separately, with a separate start etc, and a gap to recover in between - they won the race in one go across the entire course. Same thing still applies nowadays.

SJC -> indeed, no-one individually benefits from voiding a course. However, the sport should benefit, as this then highlights an example of "bad practice" which should be taken note of and not repeated in the future. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned here a couple of times already, these warnings are clearly not being heeded as the same mistakes are still happening. With the ease of communication today, there is no excuse for people not being aware of what has gone wrong in the past, and action must be taken to ensure that there is a constantly reviewed set of guidelines to ensure that the appropriate checks are carried out which provide the orienteering community with what they expect and deserve from their major championships. I can understand something going wrong at a local event with a novice organising and planning, but not at championship level. And no, I do not think I am being over-expectant of the volunteers at this level. They have been approved as major event officials, obtained the relevant experience to be considered Grade I controllers, planned enough events to even be considered as a planner of the most prestigious events on the calendar, attended a major events conference specifically related to the fact that they are involved with a championship event. If things then go wrong you have to question the procedures that are in place.

[Gross]

[awk]

Awk's proactive jury, following the fundamentalist principles promoted in this thread, would have had no option but to void.

Yes, but please don't mix the two up. The point about the proactive jury is that they don't void a course automatically. They look at what went wrong and make a judgement as to whether the result remains valid or not.

Your second example is interesting though, because it's a variant of that which caused the 'champion', Yvette Baker, to protest at the Clumber Park BOC the result being a voided race. In that situation, new control codes had been stuck over the old ones, and one had come off, unfortunately the one visible from the direction the majority approached. As a result off that, some pretty clear guidance was given as to how to avoid.

The converse is that there are times when competitors have not protested (for all sorts of reasons, often not related to a desire to avoid voiding), but the mistake has still significantly affected results. The flood of comments at this year's JK about control 90 at the relays is one that jumps to mind. But nothing has been learned from it, because nobody reviewed it or raised the issue formally.

[Knee Deep Mud!]

I have to agree with AWK's views on this:

1. The jury sits automatically if there is a problem identified with the event by whatever means.
2. The jury reviews whether the problem is significant enough to affect the validity of the result. If the problem is significant the course should be voided. If the problem is not deemed to be significant the result stands as is.

'Validity of the result' is the grey area where the jury have to make a judgment call to come up with the black and white result stands / course voided decision. The problem will always be a grey area, but the decision on the result must always be black and white.

This needs to be done on the day and before any prize giving.



Some further comments on why it is the 'validity of the result' rather than simply 'a misplaced control' that must be used for the decision making process:
There is the matter of degree of misplacing. A control placed on the NE side of a boulder rather than the N side may be less than 1m from where it should be so probably won't significantly affect the result, or even be noticed by a lot of the competitors. However, it is still misplaced, so from the B&W point of view the course should be voided. Equally a control placed on the wrong side of a wall may only be 1m from where it should be, but it may significantly affect a lot of people making the result meaningless and the course should be voided. This is where the jury comes in to make the judgment call on whether the result is valid or not.

Here's another example of why a judgment call may be needed. At another recent major event someone incorrectly collected in the last control before the last runner had got back. The last runner was significantly affected by the missing control. It didn't however have any effect on the overall results (the runner would have been in last place without the problem) and the course was not voided (the question didn't even get asked). In Axel's B&W world the course would have had to be voided.

[Knee Deep Mud!]

What is it about voiding legs that makes it so unfair that it cannot be employed?

I think that the reasoning is something like:
On a boring course where every leg was so similar that it was the same length and required exactly the same navigational input to correctly run it, then automatically removing splits might just about be fair.

However courses are not like this. Legs are different lengths and require different techniques / physicality to run successfully. I have done courses where removing splits either side of one control would have removed almost half the course length. I doubt removing a set of splits like this could ever be considered as fair?

Equally someone may have had a perfect run for the rest of the course, but screwed up that particular leg without the misplaced control having any bearing on their error. Removing the leg would then dramatically improve their position, and therefore significantly alter the result. This is independent of the length of the leg (I have lost 15 minutes on a 150m leg before now), or the abilities of the orienteer (I've seen a world champion make a 180° error!). More importantly whether the time loss is due to the misplaced control or to the orienteer's own errors cannot be determined from the splits. Therefore anyone deciding to remove the splits cannot know what effect doing this would have on the validity of the results, and therefore they may unknowingly be changing the result as a consequence of removing the splits.

[drobin]

Voiding a course = no British Champion
Don't void = 'wrong' or 'lucky' orienteer becomes British Champion.

Which option is better ('right')?

The problem is one of quality control. Sending a 'professional' or a retired elite around first would be part of quality improvements.

Leaving the results as original probably puts more pressure to improve quality. Void a course only when the competition becomes impossible to complete. (eg safety reasons).

I vote don't void. The 'best' orienteer would probably win anyway, and if he/she didn't, let the winner enjoy his 15mts of fame.

W21E voided in 1981 (Dipton), 1992 (Kelling), 1997 (Clumber), so we were overdue some controversy.

[graeme]

Can't take this seriously anymore, but can't resist pointing out..

Fifteen years ago, a British Champion wasn't the overall winner of each leg added together, with each leg raced separately, with a separate start etc, and a gap to recover in between - they won the race in one go across the entire course.

Except that 15 years ago W21E was voided... and the deserving winner quit the sport in disgust.

Compliment of the week

Please can you clarify your comment, Gnitworp? ... You will (unless you're unlucky) also be too old one day to run with the elites.

[runnerbean]

I still haven't heard a convincing argument why affected legs shouldn't be voided. The idea of any competition is to give the same test to all competitors. If one part of that test turns out to have been unfair, or wasn't the same for everyone, surely the fairest solution is to remove that part of the test.
I would much rather be second on a reduced, but fair course, than the winner where I happened not to be affected by a misplaced/moved/missing control, but other people were. Of course, for some people that leg(s) might have been their best on the course, or they might have had a howler, but if it turns out to have been unfair for any reason, I can't see why anyone would object to it being removed.
You can never completely remove all elements of luck (someone giving away a control's location, early vs late starts), but we have to make things as fair as possible.

[NeilC]

I would much rather be second on a reduced, but fair course, than the winner where I happened not to be affected by a misplaced/moved/missing control, but other people were. Of course, for some people that leg(s) might have been their best on the course, or they might have had a howler, but if it turns out to have been unfair for any reason, I can't see why anyone would object to it being removed.

How about if you won the course beating all the likely contenders (none of you suffered from the missing control) but then a few other people who were well off the pace were affected. The splits were removed and you were demoted to fourth place because, unlike the others, you had spiked this particularly difficult control. Would you still feel that it was a fair way of deciding the race winner?

[Gross]

The splits were removed and you were demoted to fourth place because, unlike the others, you had spiked this particularly difficult control. Would you still feel that it was a fair way of deciding the race winner?

Stupid comment If the control was only 'difficult' then there would be no need to remove splits / void or any other action. If control was wrong (misplaced) then if the athlete spiked the control then he wouldn't deserve to win because he hadn't even visited the correct control site... indeed he should actually be DQ'd

[King Penguin]

I would much rather be second on a reduced, but fair course, than the winner where I happened not to be affected by a misplaced/moved/missing control, but other people were. Of course, for some people that leg(s) might have been their best on the course, or they might have had a howler, but if it turns out to have been unfair for any reason, I can't see why anyone would object to it being removed.

How about if you won the course beating all the likely contenders (none of you suffered from the missing control) but then a few other people who were well off the pace were affected. The splits were removed and you were demoted to fourth place because, unlike the others, you had spiked this particularly difficult control. Would you still feel that it was a fair way of deciding the race winner?

Under the circumstances, I would say it is the fairest available. Granted not perfect, but in my opinion better than both no result and the original unadjusted result. If a course had 20 legs you are still determining the winner based on 90% of the intended legs.

If we're not willing to remove legs because of missing / misplaced controls, who do we bother to remove road crossing times ? Why not simply accept it's "luck of the draw" whether you get no traffic of a continuous stream of 20 vehicles ? No, I'm not being serious and I do agree it is sensible (safe) to remove road crossings, but if we accept the removal of these legs because conditions are / could be significantly different for different competitors why do we not accept the same principle for missing controls ?

[mharky]

Because road crossings are planned.