Late starters at major events

[Roger]

I was running the starts at the JK. We had a detailed procedure defining how we would slot late starters into gaps in the start list, ensuring that seeds were kept the required four minutes apart, and recording a start punch just in case the late-comer submitted a successful complaint to the organiser that the tardiness was the fault of the organisation. The elites, who had World Ranking Events on days 1 and 3, had full start lists with no gaps. Our IOF advisers said that for them, the only fair thing to do was to start people halfway through the gaps: on the half-minutes at the sprint, and at the 1½-minute mark for the long race where the gaps were 3 minutes.

On day 1, traffic problems meant that very many people missed their start times. The trouble-shooting team was overwhelmed, we didn't have enough gaps (e.g. a whole minibus-load of lads on the same course arrived late), and anxious people were stacking up. Neither the competitors nor (rightly) the start team knew whether any complaint to the organiser would be accepted, so the clock was ticking as they waited.

Fairly soon we abandoned the idea of trying to find empty slots on paper lists, and of trying to keep the seeds separated by the nominated interval, and simply took people to the map boxes to wait for a gap on the right course. Some of these gaps were caused by other people arriving late, of course, so on paper they appeared to be full. And when we still weren't clearing the back-log, I took the decision to start people on the half-minutes. (If it was good enough for the World Ranking Event, which had some onerous requirements to ensure fairness, why not for everybody else?)

The flip side, of course, is that competitors were more closely bunched than they should have been. This isn't too problematic for a sprint race, but having someone starting within 30s of you in a one-hour race round a forest could be more significant. Particularly if they happen to be a fellow seed.

This poll is not really about what I should have done or how the organiser should have treated the requests to change times: those decisions have been taken. The story is merely to provide some background on a possible situation. The poll is because I can't see an easy answer and I want to know how people think late starters should be treated. I'd add that the hardline approach of 'wait forever for a gap, and while you're at you'd better observe the rules on seeding' is inherently unfair: someone who arrives just before a gap will get away immediately whereas a rival may have well have to wait 10-20 minutes. And it's worse if you happen to be seeded.

[NeilC]

Unfortunately this discussion happens every year (I was start team leader for the 2008 JK).

My preferred solution is to have a dedicated start lane with ideally two officials. The plan is to "process" the late starters as quickly as possible by starting them at a half minute time. Trying to fit in with seeding rules is just not practicable so ignore those. The start logistics may mean that it's better for an official to get their map and they start from the start lane. Give all late starters a punching start (this can be done with SI (I don't know about EMIT) where the software can use the allocated start time rather than the punch start time unless no start time has been allocated - eg helpers split starts). This way an electronic record is kept of their exact start time in case of a protest.

Roger, can I suggest that you put together a best practice guide based on your experiences this year which can be handed on to next year's team. Too much wheel inventing is still going on.

[denbydale]

In Venice last year, the planned timed starts were delayed by the high tide floods and eventually abandoned. People just queued, given the appropriate map, no waiting for the 'minute' - just punched the start box and were off - After the first couple of corners people seemed to disperse easily enough. Would be much harder to do that in a forest though

[Roger]

Roger, can I suggest that you put together a best practice guide based on your experiences this year which can be handed on to next year's team. Too much wheel inventing is still going on.

I'm writing exactly that document at the moment, hence the question. "Ignore the rules" is a fairly dramatic recommendation to make, though! (We had three 'troubleshooters' in the late start lane BTW, plus a separate one for the elites. I'm recommending six, although perhaps fewer for days 2 and 3.)

Rule G, JK Individual:
3.2.1 Start time allocation and seeding for all Long and A classes shall be in accordance with Appendix L.
Appendix L:
2.1.2 The purpose of seeding is to ensure as fair a competition as possible for the better competitors in a class. This is achieved by preventing good competitors on the same course from starting too close together. Note that these competitors may be in different classes when more than one class uses the same course.
2.1.3 Minimum separation times between seeded runners shall be applied as follows:
 Sprint: 1 minute
 Middle Distance: 2 minutes
 Long Distance: 4 minutes

[aiming off]

Sport is an artificial construct with rules.

At this level, I'm afraid that the rules should be sacrosanct, if we ignore the rules of sport, there is no point to it.

So my vote goes to the option that isn't there. If the athlete cannot be accommodated within the rules, then it is disqualification. (this is the norm in other sports, e.g golf, at this level).

This then has a bearing on how the rules should be drawn up.

[NeilC]

In my eyes holding two late people for different lengths of time in order to meet seeding rules is a greater injustice than breaking the seeding rules. I am happy to work on the principle that seeding only applies to allocated start times not to late-adjusted start times. Of course there is the risk that a seeded runner will benefit from another seeded runner starting late and just ahead/behind them but again I'm happy to accept that as just one of those things.

[aiming off]

But you absolutely can't do this if it were to breach the laid down rules of the sport.

If there is injustice, then the rules need changing, so that the action taken does not breach the rules.

[awk]

In my eyes holding two late people for different lengths of time in order to meet seeding rules is a greater injustice than breaking the seeding rules.

I have to disagree with this!
Late starting is the exception where somebody has not met the first 'rule' of turning up at the right time (and I accept that there are very good reasons why this might happen!). The seeding rule is there to try and make the competition as fair as possible, so why should that rule be broken to the potential disadvantage of all of those who have met the requirements and the advantage of somebody who hasn't?
Once I've turned up late, my position is that I fit in with the organisers and the rules of the competition, not that it's unfair that I've been held up longer than somebody else who's also late! I know what the rules are when I sign up to the race. (And, yes, I have needed to advantage of late start lanes before now).

[NeilC]

If there is injustice, then the rules need changing, so that the action taken does not breach the rules.

Which is exactly what is happening, decide on what the policy should be and then write/clarify the rules accordingly. The rules have, until recently, been written by volunteers in an attempt to maintain the spirit of the sport as we know it. Sometimes there will be unforseen consequences which have to be dealt with in a pragmatic fashion.

If a runner is timed to start at 11:00, and this is time that is recorded for him/her, but they actually pick up their map at 11:03 what is their start time? It's not unreasonable to consider 11:00 as being their start time. If they finish the course at 11:18 they will be given a time of 18 minutes not 15 minutes.

Sorry AWK if we are going to allow late competitors to run competively then they have to be treated fairly.

[Little Hoddy]

I agree with awk.

If you put a late comer in at a half-interval start time then you are giving an advantage to the person who starts after them. Therefore you are effectively disadvantaging all the other people who turn up at the correct time who don't have a late comer starting just in front of them.

If a disadvantage is to be given, then it should clearly go to the people who turned up late. If they have a particularly good reason for being late then they can get their time adjusted to their new start time anyway.

[SJC]

So what would you do about the competitors who are late for their start due to a problem caused by the organisation ? (e.g. not being able to find the EMIT cards that had been allocated to them).

Should they have to stand around for an hour at the start until a vacant slot becomes available ?

[awk]

So what would you do about the competitors who are late for their start due to a problem caused by the organisation ? (e.g. not being able to find the EMIT cards that had been allocated to them). Should they have to stand around for an hour at the start until a vacant slot becomes available ?

There is usually a clause that deals with organiser errors.
If this is a real life case - how much time was allowed for collecting?

NeilC: if the clock is running from the original start time, then I see that as a slightly different situation - more akin to the late starter making an X minute mistake on the first control. I'd be less worried about them starting at the half minute in that situation. I was thinking more about someone being allocated a new start time. (Others might not see that as consistent, but I do!).

[SJC]

There is usually a clause that deals with organiser errors.

But how do the start officials know whether the cause of a competitor being late is due to the organisation or not ?
At the moment the only consideration given for organising errors is to use the actual start time rather than the pre-allocated one. The competitor could still be made to stand around waiting for a long time before they are allowed to start, which doesn't seem particularly fair..

[Roger]

NeilC: if the clock is running from the original start time, then I see that as a slightly different situation

As a member of the start team you don't know whether or not the clock is running: it depends on the outcome of the competitor's complaint to the organiser, which won't be known for some time. The default situation is that the clock is running, which adds stress to all parties.

Further, applying the seeding rule could prevent someone starting in what looks like a perfectly acceptable gap, just because the late-comer has got an asterisk on your start list and there's another seed scheduled to start 3 minutes later. They may not even be aware that they're seeded. Is it fair to impose an extra delay on someone just because they're good?

[DJM]

Not that I agree with it, the situation for WOC is

If it is not possible for the competitor to start at the allocated start time, she/he will be allowed to start one minute before the next competitor on that course (30 seconds in the Sprint). However competitors from the same Federation are not allowed to start consecutively.

from Guidelines for the Organisers of World Orienteering Championships