Scottish 6 Days
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Nothing like a good controversy to kick some life back into a dead discussion board!
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: Scottish 6 Days
spitalfields is spot on imho. DQing everyone is unfortunately not practical unless you had a spotter in the forest noting down bib numbers. Removing the leg is the least worst option.
Yes of course it changes the results in a small way, but it is nevertheless the least worst option. Presumably those who say "never ever void a leg" think that the entire Tour de France should have been voided because the penultimate Alpine stage had to be curtailed? That's one of the biggest sporting events in the world and they took a decision analogous to voiding a leg in an orienteering race. Not ideal but the least worst option, and yes it might well have decided the winner of the tour!
Yes of course it changes the results in a small way, but it is nevertheless the least worst option. Presumably those who say "never ever void a leg" think that the entire Tour de France should have been voided because the penultimate Alpine stage had to be curtailed? That's one of the biggest sporting events in the world and they took a decision analogous to voiding a leg in an orienteering race. Not ideal but the least worst option, and yes it might well have decided the winner of the tour!
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Great website and results service btw! In a different league to the emitgate at the jk
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: Scottish 6 Days
And another thing: courses 15 & 22 seem to be identical. So why number them differently and upload results to BOF separately? Doesn't really matter but it's a bit odd
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: Scottish 6 Days
This has now appeared at the top of the tracking - was it there before? Really enjoying the W65 race - just wish I was there! Are some people refusing to wear the trackers - there are runners who should have started by now but are not showing up on the trace?
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2019-08-01 at 13.08.21.png (29.08 KiB) Viewed 5880 times
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Scottish 6 Days
On balance, I agree with the Edinchip decision. It is essentially a planning error, so that's a reasonable excuse to void the leg.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Just discovered the live streaming. Wonderful! I hope we can import this standard of coverage south of the border.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Many thanks for the positive remarks - so many volunteers work very hard helping at this event and we have tried to be a bit more innovative this time around. I was pleased to carry a GPS but you might have to speed me up on the replay or go and make the coffee.
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Adrian wrote:On balance, I agree with the Edinchip decision. It is essentially a planning error, so that's a reasonable excuse to void the leg.
How is cheating a planning error?
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Scottish 6 Days
greywolf wrote:Adrian wrote:On balance, I agree with the Edinchip decision. It is essentially a planning error, so that's a reasonable excuse to void the leg.
How is cheating a planning error?
I don't see a planning (or controlling) error.
I do see that a number of people failed to obey the rules.*
I do think the solution of taking out that split is the least unfair possible in the circumstances.
Overall the races have been great.
*As a language thing, I would stick to "failing to obey the rules" rather than "cheating" which implies deliberate ill intent.
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Scottish 6 Days
greywolf wrote:Adrian wrote:On balance, I agree with the Edinchip decision. It is essentially a planning error, so that's a reasonable excuse to void the leg.
How is cheating a planning error?
You're being disingenuous. The planner sited a control a few metres from the bank of a fordable stream. The planner has attempted to create a route-choice leg by artificial means and has been caught out. If the stream was truly out-of-bounds (ie. private, dangerous or environmentally sensitive), the control would not have been placed where it was. Honestly, a planner can't just put a thick purple line on a map and call it orienteering.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Scottish 6 Days
Adrian wrote:The planner sited a control a few metres from the bank of a fordable stream. The planner has attempted to create a route-choice leg by artificial means and has been caught out. If the stream was truly out-of-bounds (ie. private, dangerous or environmentally sensitive), the control would not have been placed where it was. Honestly, a planner can't just put a thick purple line on a map and call it orienteering.
I'm not saying it was great planning - but isn't preventing this sort of thing what controllers are supposed to be there for?
I'm intrigued by your suggestion that there are different categories of OOB, some of which are "truly" out-of-bounds and others of which are to be observed at the competitor's discretion (and without sanction for breach). Are they distinguishable on the map or do you just know best?
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Scottish 6 Days
An uncrossable red line on the map when there is nothing visible on the ground is asking for people to cross it, by accident or otherwise. In this case it was easily identifiable on the ground, without tape, and referred to in the details.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1452
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: notloB
Re: Scottish 6 Days
greywolf wrote:How is cheating a planning error?
Whenever you can gain time by cheating without being caught.
In the great scheme of planning errors, its not a big one, but I'd be surprised if the planner wouldn't file it under "lets not do that next time".
Alternative answer: when saying it's a planning error is the only legal way to get the right outcome.
and for extra anticheating points, in ISOM, a solid red line means...
1/ Taped and forbidden to cross
2/ Untaped and forbidden to cross
3/ Something else
4/ One of the above in ISOM, and a different one in ISOM2017
5/ Don't cross that river quite close to the red line
(bearing in mind you don't have a copy of the rules in the course)
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4723
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Scottish 6 Days
spitalfields wrote:buzz wrote:In this case its fairly straightforward - there was a situation where a handful of people had been unfairly disadvantaged because a few had broken the rules, possibly inadvertently. The decision to remove the leg led to many more people, probably hundreds, being unfairly disadvantaged by losing places to competitors who had lost time on that leg and also potentially influence the overall results.
A strong statement, and when I have some spare time I might look at the data to test the assertion. But it doesn't feel like it hangs together.
As an example I had a look at the M14 class on course 17 (Mini Buzz ran that class). Almost half the results in the class were affected by the organiser's decision, with 23% gaining an advantage and 23% being disadvantaged including one change in podium positions which might affect the overall results. The leg was one of the short legs so crossing the river would have saved a good deal of time. There were no suspect split times that I could see. One person lost 3 places because the three people behind happened to make mistakes on that control. There were 2,500+ competitors in total and all but the shortest courses had route choice decisions (say 2000+ competitors). So assuming a similar pattern on the other courses around 500 gained an unfair advantage from the organisers decision. Obviously I’ve made some approximations and assumptions but I think it’s a fair to suggest there are hundreds of competitors affected. In contrast I doubt that there were more than 10 or 20 competitors who crossed the river and a handful of complaints, I really can’t imagine it being hundreds.
Adrian wrote:On balance, I agree with the Edinchip decision. It is essentially a planning error, so that's a reasonable excuse to void the leg.
As other’s have said it may be poor planning but as far as I know there were no rules broken by the planner. The purple line was clear and the control lines were cut – at least on the courses I’ve seen. So there’s no reason to void the leg other than to try to be fair to the people disadvantaged. Unfortunately the organiser’s decision has implications elsewhere an outcome that the rules specifically warn against…..
BOF Rules Appendix A Rules 7.9.1 wrote: Electronic punching offers what at first sight appears to be unlimited opportunities for adjusting results to overcome problems at an event. These include removing splits either side of a missing or mis-placed control or by redefining the control at which the race starts or finishes. It should be recognised that making such adjustments can affect the outcome of the race in many ways and should not be viewed as a simple means of converting an unfair race into a fair race
By removing the leg on course 17 the organiser has inadvertently influenced the outcome of what appears to be a completely fair race in which neither the planner or any of the competitors broke the rules. I would imagine this applies to many other classes as well.
Even for those classes where the river was crossed and a complaint was made I would still expect the results to stand given the advice in the rules. The decision creates a situation where the competitors who contravened the rules have been reinstated – a precedent which surely can’t be right? Those who disqualified themselves should be applauded but you still have to disqualify them otherwise what's the point of the rules in the first place?
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests