BUCS this weekend....
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: BUCS this weekend....
I don't think it's a bad thing it's being discussed. Most may be feeling bad/uneasy about it (even most of EUOC!) but it's another case for being more vigilant about the 'put OOB on the map' argument and if some future race planner learns from it then the sport is in a better place.
Andrew Dalgleish (INT)
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
Views expressed on Nopesport are my own.
- andy
- god
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
Re: BUCS this weekend....
madmike wrote:but he started it..........
It could be a "she" who started it
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Orienteer101 wrote:Irather than to use common sense and let the result stand, which nearly everyone viewed as the sporting thing to do.
Which begs the question, at what point is the crossover from breaking the rules (wittingly or otherwise) being unacceptable to being acceptable? It's been made very clear in discussions surrounding urban orienteering that pretty much any transgression should lead to people self-disqualifying, and there have been instances far more trivial than this where it's been made pretty clear that disqualification should have taken place.
Unlike others, I don't accept the argument that the organisers were at fault for not marking on the map, and relying on the final details. All the greater credit to Peter in that he doesn't try to use that as an excuse either.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: BUCS this weekend....
awk wrote: at what point is the crossover from breaking the rules (wittingly or otherwise) being unacceptable to being acceptable?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that breaking the rules is acceptable. But, according to the rules, all you need to know should be on your map. So doing something someone has once said is wrong but is not observed on the map is not the same as cheating.
Crossing a feature (knowingly or otherwise) which is marked on a map as uncrossable is breaking the rules, whether you know about it at the time doesn't matter. There is a clear difference: mapping standards.
BUOT: Orienteering Opportunities for all students
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
-
Dave - brown
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 10:44 am
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Rockaldo wrote:Others who took my route were quicker than Peter on the splits
This is not true. Peter had the fastest split for that leg by 18 seconds. The time gap between Oxford and Edinburgh at the finish line was maybe 5-10 seconds.
It was an innocent mistake
Irrelevant
(not taking in the final details)
As the BOF rule states, this is not an excuse.
.and no advantage was gained
He won the split by double the winning margin of the relay. You cannot say whether the route was faster or not, perhaps Peter just put the after-burners on. You can say for certain that the rules were broken.
The thing that all the EUOC athletes kept on telling us was that some guy at their gym only gives them money if they get more BUCS points than last year and that was the reason they were protesting. NOT because they thought Peter was a cheat or had done something wrong.
No one thinks Peter is a cheat. But he did do something wrong and it did affect the result. If he, or you or other people can't see this then I am sorry for national standard competitions where the rules are not regarded. There has been a lot of blame aimed at Toni and the man who pays Toni's wages. But I stand behind the decision to protest 100%.
I'm not disputing the the jury didn't come to the right conclusion I think they did but its more a question of the way EUOC handled their complaint. I'm sure Peter would have learned from his mistake going forward in to bigger competitions even if no complaint had been made and we have to remember that it is only BUCS relay.
I thought that the jury could have gone either way. The details were explicit, but the purple line wasn't present. However, the fact that they upheld the protest entirely justifies a protest being made. If the protest was thrown out then perhaps it would make sense to criticise the protest. But it wasn't.
It would have been great to see OUOC win. Its been a while since someone other than EUOC have won it never mind EUOC and ShUOC put together and it would have gone some way to reinvigorating the event.
I agree, and that's why it was a hard thing for us to do. But it's also irrelevant. You cannot let rules be broken because it allows a smaller club to win things. The names of the clubs involved should be irrelevant. If it was Oxford protesting against Edinburgh I bet there wouldn't be all this fuss.
How much of an advantage does someone have to get by taking an illegal short before it's an offense. Clearly a lot of Sheffield based athletes think that a few seconds if fine, even when the relay is won by a few seconds.
If I jumped that wall in front of you and saved 1 minute, is that OK? How about 2 minutes? Rules are rules.
I'm sorry that the planner and controller didn't draw the purple line on to make it 100% obvious to Peter. I'm sorry that Peter made an innocent mistake that certainly brings into doubt the legality of Oxford's win. I am not sorry that a protest was made. I agree with the jury's decision.
No one wants a medal like this, and I think our actions at the "prize giving" demonstrated this. But that doesn't change the facts of the situation.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Dave wrote:But, according to the rules, all you need to know should be on your map. So doing something someone has once said is wrong but is not observed on the map is not the same as cheating.
Crossing a feature (knowingly or otherwise) which is marked on a map as uncrossable is breaking the rules, whether you know about it at the time doesn't matter. There is a clear difference: mapping standards.
As AWK has posted, there is also a rule that states
ignorance of these Rules, or of any other instructions issued by the Organiser whether with pre-race information, prominently displayed at the event or by any other reasonable means, shall not be accepted as a satisfactory explanation for any infringement
Perhaps we need some rules bods to clarify, for the future, what is the absolute rule in this situation.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
I didn't realise he won the split. Kris told me he beat Peter by 7 seconds but maybe he had a different gaffle.
You are totally right Mark. You can't have ambiguity about it and that was why I agree with the decision in the end but I think it is right to question how it was done and the reasons for it.
I have nothing against EUOC, the rivalry is healthy etc but it left a bad taste in the mouth. The way Peter was told and the celebrating in particular. It looks really bad in front of newcomers especially when one of the most exciting newcomers that came was running for OUOC.
By the rule book EUOC did nothing wrong but I like to feel that there should be a bit more of a wider perspective taken in to account in situations like this.
You are totally right Mark. You can't have ambiguity about it and that was why I agree with the decision in the end but I think it is right to question how it was done and the reasons for it.
I have nothing against EUOC, the rivalry is healthy etc but it left a bad taste in the mouth. The way Peter was told and the celebrating in particular. It looks really bad in front of newcomers especially when one of the most exciting newcomers that came was running for OUOC.
By the rule book EUOC did nothing wrong but I like to feel that there should be a bit more of a wider perspective taken in to account in situations like this.
"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you
everywhere." Albert Einstein
everywhere." Albert Einstein
-
Rockaldo - light green
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:07 pm
- Location: Sheffield City Centre
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Dave wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting that breaking the rules is acceptable. But, according to the rules, all you need to know should be on your map. So doing something someone has once said is wrong but is not observed on the map is not the same as cheating.[Crossing a feature (knowingly or otherwise) which is marked on a map as uncrossable is breaking the rules, whether you know about it at the time doesn't matter. There is a clear difference: mapping standards.
I can't find this rule that says everything should be on the map. Can you direct me please (and is it 'should' or 'shall'?).
I didn't say that Peter cheated: cheating in my eyes requires an intention, and I'm sure from everything so far written (including Peter's own interesting and professional comments on Attack Point) that there was none. I did say that he broke a rule by not following the organiser's instructions, which had been published appropriately (and crossing not-to-be-crossed walls can and has had big repercussions), and was questioning where the crossover comes between when that is acceptable (i.e. no dsq) and not (i.e. dsq). BTW, it was meant to be a genuine question for discussion stimulated by this thread (and others), rather than any sort of loaded comment on the specific instance.
Last edited by awk on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Yeah, I am not trying to saying it was acceptable. I do agree with the decisions made, I am more trying to establish what's right for the future, which I guess you are too.
So, lets cut to the chase; At the British Relay Champs in 2 months time (similar area/terrain), will there be purple lines on the map or will all walls be uncrossable regardless of their mapping?
So, lets cut to the chase; At the British Relay Champs in 2 months time (similar area/terrain), will there be purple lines on the map or will all walls be uncrossable regardless of their mapping?
BUOT: Orienteering Opportunities for all students
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
-
Dave - brown
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 10:44 am
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Dave wrote:Yeah, I am not trying to saying it was acceptable. I do agree with the decisions made, I am more trying to establish what's right for the future, which I guess you are too.
Absolutely (as I think my editing of the post above, which crossed over with this post, may now make clearer).
So, lets cut to the chase; At the British Relay Champs in 2 months time (similar area/terrain), will there be purple lines on the map or will all walls be uncrossable regardless of their mapping?
FWIW, I too would on balance rather see purple lines, but if every wall is uncrossable, and there are loads of walls (?), then is there a danger of the map being rendered difficult to read?? However, that minor issue aside, as a broad principle I hope they are, but will comfortably live with it if they are not.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: BUCS this weekend....
I did beat peter on that split, I did have the gaffle higher up the hill though, and spongey beat me by another 10-15 seconds. I am pretty certain peter gained nothing by taking that route.
Having a whistle for the individuals was mandatory but I wonder how many people carried one and not a stick in their pocket?
I think it is not in doubt that peter broke the rules but the point that convinces me that it should have stood, is that the organisers did not make it clear enough what was and wasn't to be crossed. At the mass start they told us use the marked crossing points on all walls, not at any other point apart from in the final details (which I also only skimmed).
However, I crossed one wall (not ruined) in the forest with no overprinted crossing point on it. In the race I justified the route to myself because it was unclear if it was oob. The runners I was with saw me do it and have said nothing to me since to indicate they thought it was wrong. Should I be dq'd?
If it is not clear on the map, how can you dq someone? I am fairly certain that is an IOF rule and I seem to remember A Norwegian being runner being reinstated for this reason in a recent world cup.
I talked to Toni afterwards and I also feel that funding is a poor excuse but it is his job and I can see why he did it. I think at the prize giving most people showed that they were uncomfortable with the way things happened and I have a lot of respect for that, we are all friends first at the end of the day.
At the end of the day, Peter ran a great leg to win the relay and euoc have their BUCs points.
Having a whistle for the individuals was mandatory but I wonder how many people carried one and not a stick in their pocket?
I think it is not in doubt that peter broke the rules but the point that convinces me that it should have stood, is that the organisers did not make it clear enough what was and wasn't to be crossed. At the mass start they told us use the marked crossing points on all walls, not at any other point apart from in the final details (which I also only skimmed).
However, I crossed one wall (not ruined) in the forest with no overprinted crossing point on it. In the race I justified the route to myself because it was unclear if it was oob. The runners I was with saw me do it and have said nothing to me since to indicate they thought it was wrong. Should I be dq'd?
If it is not clear on the map, how can you dq someone? I am fairly certain that is an IOF rule and I seem to remember A Norwegian being runner being reinstated for this reason in a recent world cup.
I talked to Toni afterwards and I also feel that funding is a poor excuse but it is his job and I can see why he did it. I think at the prize giving most people showed that they were uncomfortable with the way things happened and I have a lot of respect for that, we are all friends first at the end of the day.
At the end of the day, Peter ran a great leg to win the relay and euoc have their BUCs points.
- Kris
- off string
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:39 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
It looks as if ISOM already covers the "all the info on the map" issue already. Consider the following map symbol codes and descriptions...
207 Large boulder: A particularly large and distinct boulder
506 Footpath: A large path, or old vehicle track, which is distinct on the ground.
707 Uncrossable boundary: A boundary which it is not permitted to cross.
There is no difference betwen the syntax of these descriptions (they all start "a ..."), the only difference being that the third one is conventionally known as an "overprint" symbol. They thus have equal status as ISOM symbols.
Now, for some reason, it has become customary for 707 to be regarded as an optional extra. However, it seems clear to me that it is not an option at all, according to ISOM. Just as you have to use symbol 207 to show a large boulder, you have to use 707 to show an uncrossable boundary, there being no other way within ISOM (unlike ISSOM ...)
207 Large boulder: A particularly large and distinct boulder
506 Footpath: A large path, or old vehicle track, which is distinct on the ground.
707 Uncrossable boundary: A boundary which it is not permitted to cross.
There is no difference betwen the syntax of these descriptions (they all start "a ..."), the only difference being that the third one is conventionally known as an "overprint" symbol. They thus have equal status as ISOM symbols.
Now, for some reason, it has become customary for 707 to be regarded as an optional extra. However, it seems clear to me that it is not an option at all, according to ISOM. Just as you have to use symbol 207 to show a large boulder, you have to use 707 to show an uncrossable boundary, there being no other way within ISOM (unlike ISSOM ...)
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: BUCS this weekend....
Perhaps the whole race should be voided that way no one can be seen to profit from what is obviously a very difficult and questionable set of circumstances.
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
I am not sure making it void is very wise the extra money EUOC are going to get is clearly needed when their A team (with 3 current British team members two of whom went to WOC this year) cant beat a team made up of an 18 year old, an athlete that has been injured for a large part of the winter and Robert Gardner.
- WrongRoute
- string
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:11 pm
Re: BUCS this weekend....
DJM wrote:It looks as if ISOM already covers the "all the info on the map" issue already. Consider the following map symbol codes and descriptions...
207 Large boulder: A particularly large and distinct boulder
506 Footpath: A large path, or old vehicle track, which is distinct on the ground.
707 Uncrossable boundary: A boundary which it is not permitted to cross.
There is no difference betwen the syntax of these descriptions (they all start "a ..."), the only difference being that the third one is conventionally known as an "overprint" symbol. They thus have equal status as ISOM symbols.
Just as you have to use symbol 207 to show a large boulder, you have to use 707 to show an uncrossable boundary, there being no other way within ISOM (unlike ISSOM ...)
If we're going to worry about the syntax: the syntax is such that all they are saying is that this feature that is mapped is a boulder, a track, a boundary that it is not permitted to cross. They are not saying that every boulder, every track, or every boundary that is not to be crossed is mapped as such. However, the organisers did give instructions as to how to treat the walls.
I'm being nitpicky, because I think it's unfair that the organisers/planners are threatened (yet again) with being made scapegoats.
The lesson to be learned I think is that if the race matters to you, don't skim read the final details. The organisers gave the competitors instructions in the most appropriate place, and those instructions unfortunately weren't followed. The consequences are something I spend much of my working life teaching children what will happen if you don't pay attention to the instructions.....
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 199 guests