The following occurred at the British individual on Saturday, I would invite opinion on what the correct and fair action of the officials should be:
On M21E a control had been moved and buried beneath leaves by some kids. 5 (?) competitors had initially failed to find it and lost a fair bit of time searching, 1 had returned to assembly and informed the officials. Subsequent to this 3 more competitors spent some time searching and eventually discovered it buried, they replaced the control, 2 continued, 1 returned to tell the officials.
As a controller/organiser/other official considering this matter, what action should you take? [Please include full explanations and justifications]
Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Ah! Is this a trick question......
We had some debate on here before about this and a look at the rules at that time suggested that it depended on whether or not the outcome of the race is affected. ie if it only affected also-rans then tough!
So....
My answer is - there isnt enough information.(caveat - I havent actually looked up the rules of the British or WRE to see if they are different to normal events)
You need to tell us which competitors were affected and by how much? Did it realistically affect the outcome of the event?
If it did, then I guess voiding the race is the option. (I hate this but it seems to be true) Although possibly someone actually has to officially complain and I havent seen any suggestion of a compaint? Simply removing the affected legs doesnt necessarily result in the right outcome either. Was the race seeded? In which case the first few runners are probably not likely to challenge for the podium so result may stand. I'd be annoyed if it was me though!
We had some debate on here before about this and a look at the rules at that time suggested that it depended on whether or not the outcome of the race is affected. ie if it only affected also-rans then tough!
So....
My answer is - there isnt enough information.(caveat - I havent actually looked up the rules of the British or WRE to see if they are different to normal events)
You need to tell us which competitors were affected and by how much? Did it realistically affect the outcome of the event?
If it did, then I guess voiding the race is the option. (I hate this but it seems to be true) Although possibly someone actually has to officially complain and I havent seen any suggestion of a compaint? Simply removing the affected legs doesnt necessarily result in the right outcome either. Was the race seeded? In which case the first few runners are probably not likely to challenge for the podium so result may stand. I'd be annoyed if it was me though!
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
I would say a big thank you to those who sacrificed their runs, and unless they made a protest, leave it at that.
The acts of others in the forest are unfortunately the one thing you can't control without someone guarding every site, which is a huge drain on manpower. It is very, very hard on those that lost out, but unless they wish to do something about it on the day, then results should stand. Unfortunately this kind of thing is likely to happen early on in a competition, and thus the podium results are rarely affected. This is the British Champs, and I think no further action being taken was the right thing to do.
The acts of others in the forest are unfortunately the one thing you can't control without someone guarding every site, which is a huge drain on manpower. It is very, very hard on those that lost out, but unless they wish to do something about it on the day, then results should stand. Unfortunately this kind of thing is likely to happen early on in a competition, and thus the podium results are rarely affected. This is the British Champs, and I think no further action being taken was the right thing to do.
Will? We've got proper fire now!
-
Becks - god
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 2:25 pm
- Location: East Preston Street Massif
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Appendix I section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. The top positions (defined in 3.2.3 as somewhere between one and six) were not affected so the result should stand.
Competitors who missed the affected control but completed the course may have their result allowed to stand if there was a protest, but the race outcome would remain - under the rules no question of voiding it.
The problem is massive bad luck on those affected but no reason to void the race on this occasion.
Competitors who missed the affected control but completed the course may have their result allowed to stand if there was a protest, but the race outcome would remain - under the rules no question of voiding it.
The problem is massive bad luck on those affected but no reason to void the race on this occasion.
Why did I do that...
- Jon X
- green
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:20 pm
- Location: should be out training
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
I haven't got a full list of competitors affected but I know that the initial 4 or 5 included Shane Lynch, with Ed Nicholas being the one who returned. The next 3 were Tom Beasant, Chris Smithard and me (who returned). Challengers for top 3? - no, challengers for top 10? - yes, possibly. Should it come into it? The race was seeded, they weren't the early starters, they were middle starters. Does there need to be an official protest? I can tell you there was more than one unofficial complaint, bare in mind that in this instance there was great pressure not to make the official protest.
- Matt F
- string
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 9:09 pm
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Section 3 of Appendix I to the British Orienteering rules contains the guidance on when to void a course at a British Orienteering event. It's too long to quote in full here (a couple of pages) and I think you really need to read the whole thing, but the most relevant couple of sentences are:
However, I think I'm right in saying that because it's a WRE the relevant IOF rule takes precedence. This is much more concise:
Is there/should there be an option to void the course as a WRE but let it stand as a British Championship?
3.2.3 The primary purpose of an orienteering race is to determine the best orienteers on the day. If it can be established that a serious problem is unlikely to have affected the top runners in a race then no action should be taken since the winners of the race will be determined by who completed the designated race in the quickest time.
However, I think I'm right in saying that because it's a WRE the relevant IOF rule takes precedence. This is much more concise:
26.12 The organiser must void a competition if at any point it becomes clear that circumstances have arisen which make the competition unfair or dangerous for the competitors.
Is there/should there be an option to void the course as a WRE but let it stand as a British Championship?
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Although very unfortunate and the Ed and Matt should be thanked for their efforts to endure that the race was not affected for a greater number of people, the race should stand.
The Ranking position for the affected runners named above:
Matt F 65
Shane L 47
Ed Nicholls ?
Chris S 26
Tom B 35
Realistically they would not have troubled the top 6, and unlikely even a top 10.
Top 6:
Doug T 12
Matt C 1
Ralph S 11
Oleg C 8
Dan M ?
Murray S 3
Really frustrating and I would probably offer the two that actually sacrificed their runs a full refund and our thanks.
The Ranking position for the affected runners named above:
Matt F 65
Shane L 47
Ed Nicholls ?
Chris S 26
Tom B 35
Realistically they would not have troubled the top 6, and unlikely even a top 10.
Top 6:
Doug T 12
Matt C 1
Ralph S 11
Oleg C 8
Dan M ?
Murray S 3
Really frustrating and I would probably offer the two that actually sacrificed their runs a full refund and our thanks.
"If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut" Abraham Lincoln
-
LostAgain - diehard
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:32 pm
- Location: If only I knew
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
I'd not only give them a refund , I'd give some of them free entry for next years BOC & JK because of their efforts to sort it out
Last edited by AndyC on Mon May 16, 2011 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Hi
Thanks for the kind words people. One of the real worries is that as I was heading back to the finish I saw Dan the man flying past so we are really lucky that the next group found the control.
In terms of pounds and pence the organisers have just sent us an email so that's being taken care of. I'm also angling for a 30 min head start for both races this weekend and a signed photo of Gareth Candy. Fingers crossed.
Eduardo
Thanks for the kind words people. One of the real worries is that as I was heading back to the finish I saw Dan the man flying past so we are really lucky that the next group found the control.
In terms of pounds and pence the organisers have just sent us an email so that's being taken care of. I'm also angling for a 30 min head start for both races this weekend and a signed photo of Gareth Candy. Fingers crossed.
Eduardo
nope it i still have the coolest hat in school
-
eddie - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 2260
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:54 pm
- Location: back at the begining
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Some further thoughts from the IOF below. Remember that removing legs is not an option - either the results stand or the course is voided.
Reason to void a competition
10. There can be no hard and fast rule determining when a race should be voided and when the results should be left to stand with those adversely affected by a problem regarded as unfortunate. However the key considerations should be:
• Has the problem affected the results so badly that the race is no longer perceived by the competitors, the public and the media as reasonably fair with credible results?
• Is it probable that the results will be challenged and the challenge upheld?
• Does the perceived unfairness outweigh the requirement to declare a result and celebrate the winners?
Who can void a race?
11. The organiser should declare a race void if circumstances have arisen which make the race significantly unfair. If the organiser does not void the race but a competitor feels it should be voided then a complaint can be made to that effect. If the complaint is rejected but the competitor still feels that the race should be voided, then a protest can be made. The jury considers the protest and (if the protest is upheld) may instruct the organiser to void the race.
12. In certain circumstances it is possible for an appeal to be lodged with the IOF and a competitor might even take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) or a civil court.
Factors when considering whether to void a competition
13. There are a number of factors which the organiser (and if necessary the jury) must consider.
• How many and what proportion of competitors were affected? A problem that adversely affected 10% or more of the field could be taken as an indication that the race may no longer be fair.
• Were the affected competitors potential medallists?
• Is it likely that the problem has seriously affected the placings of the leading competitors?
• How large and serious was the effect of the problem? A few seconds are more significant in a sprint than in a long distance race.
• What is the status of the competition (from WRE up to WOC)?
• What type of race is it (qualification, final, interval start, mass start, sprint, relay etc)?
• Is it fair to competitors not affected by the problem to void the race?
• Which outcome would do least harm to the image of the sport? How do the negative consequences of voiding the race compare to the negative consequences of not doing so?
• Could the competition be rescheduled at a time fair to the competitors, organisers and IOF?
• Was the problem an organiser error or was it something outside of the organiser’s control? There may be a greater willingness to allow the results to stand if the problem could not easily have been prevented.
14. The above factors must be considered together. Often more than one is relevant and a balanced judgement has to be made.
15. Sometimes the relevant factors will be very finely balanced and there is likely to be criticism whatever decision is made.
16. In some cases, it may be worth consulting the most-affected teams and discussing with them the pros and cons of the alternative options. It is not a good outcome if the winners refuse to accept their medals.
Reason to void a competition
10. There can be no hard and fast rule determining when a race should be voided and when the results should be left to stand with those adversely affected by a problem regarded as unfortunate. However the key considerations should be:
• Has the problem affected the results so badly that the race is no longer perceived by the competitors, the public and the media as reasonably fair with credible results?
• Is it probable that the results will be challenged and the challenge upheld?
• Does the perceived unfairness outweigh the requirement to declare a result and celebrate the winners?
Who can void a race?
11. The organiser should declare a race void if circumstances have arisen which make the race significantly unfair. If the organiser does not void the race but a competitor feels it should be voided then a complaint can be made to that effect. If the complaint is rejected but the competitor still feels that the race should be voided, then a protest can be made. The jury considers the protest and (if the protest is upheld) may instruct the organiser to void the race.
12. In certain circumstances it is possible for an appeal to be lodged with the IOF and a competitor might even take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) or a civil court.
Factors when considering whether to void a competition
13. There are a number of factors which the organiser (and if necessary the jury) must consider.
• How many and what proportion of competitors were affected? A problem that adversely affected 10% or more of the field could be taken as an indication that the race may no longer be fair.
• Were the affected competitors potential medallists?
• Is it likely that the problem has seriously affected the placings of the leading competitors?
• How large and serious was the effect of the problem? A few seconds are more significant in a sprint than in a long distance race.
• What is the status of the competition (from WRE up to WOC)?
• What type of race is it (qualification, final, interval start, mass start, sprint, relay etc)?
• Is it fair to competitors not affected by the problem to void the race?
• Which outcome would do least harm to the image of the sport? How do the negative consequences of voiding the race compare to the negative consequences of not doing so?
• Could the competition be rescheduled at a time fair to the competitors, organisers and IOF?
• Was the problem an organiser error or was it something outside of the organiser’s control? There may be a greater willingness to allow the results to stand if the problem could not easily have been prevented.
14. The above factors must be considered together. Often more than one is relevant and a balanced judgement has to be made.
15. Sometimes the relevant factors will be very finely balanced and there is likely to be criticism whatever decision is made.
16. In some cases, it may be worth consulting the most-affected teams and discussing with them the pros and cons of the alternative options. It is not a good outcome if the winners refuse to accept their medals.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Those affected by control 6 (#66) being missing were Ian Webb, Ed Nicholas, Jonathan Rhys, Iain Stamp, Shane Lynch (all five of whom didn't punch it), Tom Beasant, Matt Franklin and Chris Smithard (all three of whom punched it, but only after Chris managed to find it and replace it).
It was missing for about 20 minutes (it was there at 13:18, and it was replaced at 13:41).
We decided this morning to email those concerned (not as a result of this thread on Nopesport, interesting though it is... ).
It was missing for about 20 minutes (it was there at 13:18, and it was replaced at 13:41).
We decided this morning to email those concerned (not as a result of this thread on Nopesport, interesting though it is... ).
Martin Ward, SYO (Chair) & SPOOK.
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
-
Spookster - god
- Posts: 2267
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
I wasn't familiar with the document NeilC quotes above, which has come from the IOF Rules Commission, but it certainly makes for interesting reading. How many of the hypothetical examples at the end do you agree with?
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
I am convinced this is an area where the rules have lagged behind the technology.
I appreciate there are / may be special considerations for WRE and Championships to other events, but I would like to broaden the discusion (again) to other events / classes.
I was affected by a similar incident at the JK a number of year ago (curiously the same controller but that's entirely coincidental and neither incident were anything at all to do with him).
The LAST thing I wanted was the course to be voided; and I stated this explicitly in my protest.
The response to my protest was "the top places were not affected so no action".
To which I responder "WHY ??? - all the more reason why something should be done".
This is supposedly a "sport for all", to quote a phrase which was in vogue a few years ago. There are many initiatives trying to increase participation so why hack off the average punter just because it does not affect the top few in the class ?
In the previous instance I suggested the leg either side should be removed. On various occasions some people have said this is not appropriate because runners will have been put off and will not focus on the rest of the course and won't bother to run properly because they won't know the legs will be removed.
I maintain that if removal of legs in these circumstances became the norm / established policy then people would know this and would continue to push hard on the rest of the course.
We have the technology these days which would allow us to remove the legs, so why not do so ? The principle of leg removal is well established even for elites and WRE - e.g. timed-out road crossings. If we can remove these to remove blatent unfairness (some delayed by vehicles, others not) why can't we do the same for blatent unfairness due to missing controls ?
In the days of pin-punching clearly such a solution would be impossible. It seems to me that in this respect the rules have not kept up with the technology.
... and while I'm here, congratulations to all those involved in running both days. Excellent courses, technically challenging, a true championship test, very enjoyable, and my poor results are entirely my own fault.
I appreciate there are / may be special considerations for WRE and Championships to other events, but I would like to broaden the discusion (again) to other events / classes.
I was affected by a similar incident at the JK a number of year ago (curiously the same controller but that's entirely coincidental and neither incident were anything at all to do with him).
The LAST thing I wanted was the course to be voided; and I stated this explicitly in my protest.
The response to my protest was "the top places were not affected so no action".
To which I responder "WHY ??? - all the more reason why something should be done".
This is supposedly a "sport for all", to quote a phrase which was in vogue a few years ago. There are many initiatives trying to increase participation so why hack off the average punter just because it does not affect the top few in the class ?
In the previous instance I suggested the leg either side should be removed. On various occasions some people have said this is not appropriate because runners will have been put off and will not focus on the rest of the course and won't bother to run properly because they won't know the legs will be removed.
I maintain that if removal of legs in these circumstances became the norm / established policy then people would know this and would continue to push hard on the rest of the course.
We have the technology these days which would allow us to remove the legs, so why not do so ? The principle of leg removal is well established even for elites and WRE - e.g. timed-out road crossings. If we can remove these to remove blatent unfairness (some delayed by vehicles, others not) why can't we do the same for blatent unfairness due to missing controls ?
In the days of pin-punching clearly such a solution would be impossible. It seems to me that in this respect the rules have not kept up with the technology.
... and while I'm here, congratulations to all those involved in running both days. Excellent courses, technically challenging, a true championship test, very enjoyable, and my poor results are entirely my own fault.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: notloB
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Those affected by control 6 (#66) being missing were Ian Webb, Ed Nicholas, Jonathan Rhys, Iain Stamp, Shane Lynch (all five of whom didn't punch it), Tom Beasant, Matt Franklin and Chris Smithard (all three of whom punched it, but only after Chris managed to find it and replace it).
We have the technology these days which would allow us to remove the legs, so why not do so ?
Removing legs 6 and 7 from the results promotes Ralph Street to second place and moves Matthew Crane down to third. So you would change the top positions despite the fact that both competitors ran the full course and neither was affected by the missing control. Hard to justify such an action.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Controllers conundrum - BOC incident
Scott wrote:Is there/should there be an option to void the course as a WRE but let it stand as a British Championship?
Can someone who is "in the know" say whether this is an option. Having thought about this, given that WRE points are calculated for everyone, that this might have been a better outcome.
But if the only outcomes of a protest are "results stand, reinstate affected competitors" or "void course and all competitions held on it" then (a) the better outcome probably won out in this case and (b) someone should have another look at the rules.
-
distracted - addict
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:15 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 205 guests