York University Race

[AndyC]

Good fun , well planned and organised - I even had friends make comments about how challenging it was on the run.
I'm disappointed however that when I got to control 107 (very correctly described as fence SE side and mapped correctly as uncrossable) I could see clear evidence from the ground ivy that a significant number of people had punched it from the "wrong side" -sad as the advantage they gained by cheating (there is no other word) would have actually made the next leg slightly longer (if a bit less complicated).

[awk]

Fairly relaxed about that: anybody who punched from the wrong side was penalised by having a longer run to the next control - definitely quicker going to the right side of the fence.

Really enjoyed today: a great course with one or two excellent route choice legs in amongst the more sprint style orienteering, and York Uni was as interesting technically as I remembered from the British Sprints last year. If anything it was more challenging this time.

[graeme]

(very correctly described as fence SE side and mapped correctly as uncrossable) I could see clear evidence from the ground ivy that a significant number of people had punched it from the "wrong side"

So it's "correctly" mapped as uncrossable and your complaint is that people crossed it!

Bearing in mind this is an event organised by a new club, one would hope they have some new people, and one might even guess that these new people might not have read ISSOM in detail.

cheating (there is no other word)

I'm sorry, but the words you're after for this kind of control placement are "bad controlling". Which happens from time to time, and I presume has been mitigated by some good controlling in not DQ'ing a stack of newcomers who gained no advantage.

[awk]

So it's "correctly" mapped as uncrossable and your complaint is that people crossed it!

Well, you couldn't get your body across it, but you could get your arm through it.

I'm sorry, but the words you're after for this kind of control placement are "bad controlling". Which happens from time to time, and I presume has been mitigated by some good controlling in not DQ'ing a stack of newcomers who gained no advantage.

To quote the controller (reasonably accurately I think!): "A good controller would have made certain it had been moved, but being a bad controller, I decided that they were penalised enough by having to run the extra distance!"

[bac0990]

No, AndyC is correct on all counts.

[graeme]

To quote the controller...

Wow! That's uncannily close to what I wrote. Except I talked about bad controlling (which even good controllers do sometimes, and really good ones notice when they do), rather than bad controllers.

[awk]

No, AndyC is correct on all counts.

To my mind cheating implies intent - it's a very emotive word; with that in mind, I suggest you are not cheating if you are are not breaking the rules with intent. I also know of several people who initially punched the wrong side, and then went round to the right side. So, how do you or anybody else know whether cheating was going on or not?

To my mind (as one of the competitors who punched from the correct side), I think that the controller was absolutely right to take the line he did.

[awk]

Except I talked about bad controlling (which even good controllers do sometimes, and really good ones notice when they do), rather than bad controllers.

I appreciate the difference, and absolutely agree.

I quite like that idea though - that by punching from the wrong side one automatically incurs a penalty. Gets around the issue of trying to work out who did and who didn't. (I know that from the letter of the law point of view it would be better for the control to have been positioned in such a way that one couldn't punch through the fence, but still enjoy the neatness of the result!).

[AndyC]

"cheat
[cheet]
verb (used with object)
1.
to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2.
to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3.
to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4.
to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5.
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6.
to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7.
Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife."

5 applies and doesn't include intent - please note my careful use of the word "disappointed" in my first post. I was disappointed that either people deliberately punched from the wrong side (and btb I think on my course it might be considerably faster as the navigation was much simpler) or that they had insufficient ability to know they were on the wrong side.
I also think that a simple application of a barrier on the fence( a sheet of plastic perhaps) could have prevented anyone punching from the wrong side without major effort.
But it was a good event and we all live and learn

[haloite]

Excellent event - well planned (thanks Adam) with good sprint-style legs over a longer urban-type distance! Course A certainly kept you thinking right the way through all 32 controls over the 4.8km straight line (I ran 6.7km actual). Well done University of York O-Club and Eborienteers for supporting them with the venture

[awk]

OK, so it's an issue of semantics, but pretty much every definition both there and in my Shorter Oxford implies intent. Even the example of that definition 5 implies intent. To accuse someone of cheating would almost always be taken as an expression of intent. You may not have meant it that way Andy, but that's the way almost anybody would take it, and that's what you have to bear in mind when using such words.

BTW, I ran the same course as you, and there is no doubt in my mind that anybody who punched from the wrong side of the fence would be at a significant disadvantage in getting to the next control quicker. It's not a lot simpler (it was pretty straightforward through the buildings) and definitely longer.

Excellent event - well planned (thanks Adam) with good sprint-style legs over a longer urban-type distance! Course A certainly kept you thinking right the way through all 32 controls over the 4.8km straight line (I ran 6.7km actual). Well done University of York O-Club and Eborienteers for supporting them with the venture

Totally agree (with Course B substituted for Course A!). Thank you all!

[Big Jon]

I thought ignorance was no defence in the eyes of the law.

[nooomember]

Exactly, ignorance is no defence.
To quote Awk, "Even the example of that definition 5 implies intent.", I am afraid no it doesnt; it simply states 'to violate a rule', which some people did, therefore SHOULD be disqualified. It shouldnt be at the discretion of an organiser or controller whether someone is disqualified - it is black and white, whether they broke a rule or not, and whether they should be disqualified or not. It is also irrelevent that the offenders are beginners or not - it should not matter who the person or people are. But i was forgetting that the officials (although officially UYOC are actually Ebor).

[LostAgain]

Fairly relaxed about that: anybody who punched from the wrong side was penalised by having a longer run to the next control - definitely quicker going to the right side of the fence.

However, if you were incompetent and not a cheat then you were penalised even more. I did not read my description, went to the wrong side, realised my mistake and ran round approximately 1 minute extra. If I had put my hand through, as clearly some had, my mistake would have been a few seconds longer run to next control.

Correct placement of the control to avoid people putting their hand through is critical for fairness to all. This has been discussed at length in other threads, the SYO urban a little while ago comes to mind where the same issue was raised.

[Wayward-O]

I wasn't there, so can't comment on the specifics, but imo this should have been controlled out before the event. Bad controlling during the event shouldn't make up for poor controlling before the event.

Whether the route to the next control is longer is irrelevant; what the competitor has saved is the time to navigate to the correct side of the uncrossable feature. Also, the route from the 'wrong' side, although longer, could provide easier navigation and thus allow the competitor more opportunity to plan ahead.