I am bemused why there are no comments on the Boc website despite 2 protests with no reply.
They both refer to the same leg, 8-9 on m60l but on 2 different courses. I didn't wish to fill in a formal protest, merely wanting to discuss it with the controller, but I was prevailed upon to do so.
The leg required the use of one of 2 fence crossings a very long way from the straight line. It is abundantly clear that the top 10 fastest splits on m60l are i possible and that the people concerned failed to complete the set course, whether or not they deliberately cheated is neither here nor there. The evidence is incontravertable and therefore they should be disqualified.
Had the fence been marshalled, as the program suggested, the leg was valid, but without so doing at least the definites should be dqd.
With just 1 late crossing point having a control, i had already set off for the next one before fortunately remembering i had not punched and returning. Five unlucky people were less fortunate and were correctly but unfortunately disqualified for forgetting to punch.
How on earth can it be ok to dq them when indisputable failures to complete the course through either deliberate cheating, or inadequate navigation are not?
Boc non disqualifications
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Boc non disqualifications
You can't DQ without proof and apparently an impossible split isn't proof. Take the WRE at bannockburn last year, it was obvious that some people crossed the uncrossable fence to the 1st control because of an open gate, but there was no way the rules allowed a DQ apparently
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: Boc non disqualifications
There is a noticeably lower number of M60s (7 of 72) drawing their routes on routegadget compared to M55s (18 of 77) and M65s (13 of 75), a coincidence?
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Such a shame that at our major champs people ignore 'fences not to be crossed' as marked by the purple line, Not only do they gain an unfair advantage, they may be jeopardizing future events. Whilst people can't be DQd for a fast split time and the leg cannot be voided (I believe not possible at level A events), I would hope the organizers would encourage anyone 'illegally' crossing a fence to self disqualify.
- jonesy
- string
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:48 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
cue everyone - look up M60L splits
Well having had a look i'm not sure that disqualification would have made a difference to the top 3 places if that's a consolation. Which was the other course affected?
Well having had a look i'm not sure that disqualification would have made a difference to the top 3 places if that's a consolation. Which was the other course affected?
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
The organiser could disqualify on the basis of unlikely splits. Without definite proof a disqualified runner could appeal and be re-instated, but perhaps someone who knows that they transgressed is more likely to accept the dsq than they are to self-dsq.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Looking at Routegadget for M60L (my course as well) one persons (GPS) route clearly shows him crossing the fence in question- does that constitute grounds for disqualification? Because they certainly did not 'self-disqualify'.
Eddie is right, because it was quite a short leg those that went 'over' rather than 'round' are very clear. I must confess to being very disappointed in a number of experienced orienteers that I know well who clearly did just that. By my reckoning 5 people above me in the results knowingly cheated, very sad.
Having said all that it was poor planning to have a route choice based around crossing points for an 'uncrossable' fence that was physically quite easy to cross (even for us M60s)
Eddie is right, because it was quite a short leg those that went 'over' rather than 'round' are very clear. I must confess to being very disappointed in a number of experienced orienteers that I know well who clearly did just that. By my reckoning 5 people above me in the results knowingly cheated, very sad.
Having said all that it was poor planning to have a route choice based around crossing points for an 'uncrossable' fence that was physically quite easy to cross (even for us M60s)
- Slowtochide
- orange
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:47 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Sorry, but can you quote any rule that says you cannot disqualify because of an impossible split?
There may be precedents for organisers deciding not to, (and an open gate is a very different matter from a solid fence,) however there is certainly a precedent for the other result. In the first Edinburgh race about 20% of the field were disqualified for having crossed an oob road evidenced by impossible splits.
Had i not returned to the gate crossing i nearly forgot, and if these results stand, I would put in an appeal, not because i think i should be reinstated, but to highlight the absurdity of it.
In my opinion it is simple. They transgressed, the evidence is incontravertable, their results should not stand - they did not complete the course and I cannot believe that any of them will try to claim they had.
Also where is the response to the official protests.
All such a pity as I thought it was a well planned, organised and challenging BOC with a massive amount of worthwhile effort from many people for which i remain eternally grateful.
There may be precedents for organisers deciding not to, (and an open gate is a very different matter from a solid fence,) however there is certainly a precedent for the other result. In the first Edinburgh race about 20% of the field were disqualified for having crossed an oob road evidenced by impossible splits.
Had i not returned to the gate crossing i nearly forgot, and if these results stand, I would put in an appeal, not because i think i should be reinstated, but to highlight the absurdity of it.
In my opinion it is simple. They transgressed, the evidence is incontravertable, their results should not stand - they did not complete the course and I cannot believe that any of them will try to claim they had.
Also where is the response to the official protests.
All such a pity as I thought it was a well planned, organised and challenging BOC with a massive amount of worthwhile effort from many people for which i remain eternally grateful.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
I'd also like to make clear that i do't think that all transgressors were cheating. I don't know most of them and one of those that i do i cannot believe to be a cheat.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
EddieH wrote:Sorry, but can you quote any rule that says you cannot disqualify because of an impossible split?
There may be precedents for organisers deciding not to, (and an open gate is a very different matter from a solid fence,) however there is certainly a precedent for the other result. In the first Edinburgh race about 20% of the field were disqualified for having crossed an oob road evidenced by impossible splits.
I didn't say there's a rule you can't, just that you can't without proof. And to many this doesn't constitute proof. i.e. it does indeed rest with the organisers.
I think in this situation we should be DSQing... whether intentional or otherwise.
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: Boc non disqualifications
Looking at the evidence online I dont think its nearly as clear cut as people are making out.
OK so if you have put an illegal route on RG then you are more or less confirming you did it, but as has been pointed out before I could quite easily put an illegal route on RG for either of the first two - would that mean they were DQ??
But looking at the leg 8-9 in question.
Its only slightly longer than 5-6 (1min 24) or 6-7 (1 min 22) and in theory at least easier becasue the first half you can hare to the crossing point and then you have the fence to follow, a big re-entrant a fence and a pond to use as pointers. The fastest leg is 1min 49 (twice) and one at 1 min 50.
Eddie (3rd) did it in 3:01 same as colin in 1st and Peter (2nd) did it in 2min 38.
If we assume that Peter is the fastest legal time in the top 3 (presumably he would ahve gone sub 2min if he'd cheated) then there are several other controls where poepl beat Peter by more than 30seconds. 2,12,14,15.
So I'm not sure that its fair to say that:
at least not for everyone who had a faster time than the top 3.
OK so if you have put an illegal route on RG then you are more or less confirming you did it, but as has been pointed out before I could quite easily put an illegal route on RG for either of the first two - would that mean they were DQ??
But looking at the leg 8-9 in question.
Its only slightly longer than 5-6 (1min 24) or 6-7 (1 min 22) and in theory at least easier becasue the first half you can hare to the crossing point and then you have the fence to follow, a big re-entrant a fence and a pond to use as pointers. The fastest leg is 1min 49 (twice) and one at 1 min 50.
Eddie (3rd) did it in 3:01 same as colin in 1st and Peter (2nd) did it in 2min 38.
If we assume that Peter is the fastest legal time in the top 3 (presumably he would ahve gone sub 2min if he'd cheated) then there are several other controls where poepl beat Peter by more than 30seconds. 2,12,14,15.
So I'm not sure that its fair to say that:
In my opinion it is simple. They transgressed, the evidence is incontravertable, their results should not stand - they did not complete the course and I cannot believe that any of them will try to claim they had.
at least not for everyone who had a faster time than the top 3.
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: Boc non disqualifications
Anyone could have crossed the fence and then made a 30sec mistake in the circle, having a similar time and thus their result would stand.
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: Boc non disqualifications
I think for these sorts of issues the only truly fair thing to do is to void the race, but no organiser wants to do that so the next fairest thing is to just let the results stand.
Still doesn't explain why no response to the protest(s) was given, which it certainly should.
Still doesn't explain why no response to the protest(s) was given, which it certainly should.
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: Boc non disqualifications
Is there any reason why the leg shouldn't be voided? Unlike the situation where misplaced controls cause those effected additional time lose by lose of concentration etc and the effects on the overall race are uncertain.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
maprun wrote:Is there any reason why the leg shouldn't be voided? Unlike the situation where misplaced controls cause those effected additional time lose by lose of concentration etc and the effects on the overall race are uncertain.
not voided - retrospective timed out fence crossing
- frostbite
- light green
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:48 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests