2022 British Middles

[Crex]

Anyone know if there will be a string course? No mention of it on the website, nor is there a contact email.
Asking for a friend (of course!). I'm pondering whether to make the trip down to the event, and this is a relevant consideration

[Crex]

It turned out there *was* a string course. Thank you so much for organising it, much appreciated by my tot.

Rest of the event was pretty good too . I've not run there before and didn't know about Greensand Country, so found it an interesting and surprising area.

[Arnold]

Yes, a lovely event with a nice feel especially in the arena. Not the world’s hardest area, but enough to make it fun I thought.

There seemed to be an issue with control syncing as I had one negative split and plenty of others that didn’t make sense. But at least the relative comparison should still be accurate.

The live results were great, although in M45 this has now changed to everyone except one person being 90secs faster than their actual time, so I’m a bit confused but no doubt an explanation will follow.

[ianandmonika]

I think legs 4-5-6 have been eliminated following a protest but not sure if the results are still correct.

[rado]

My understanding is that control 149 which was within 50 meters of another on the same feature (path junction) and so following someone mispunching, a protest was put it. It would seem that leg and the one after it were removed for that class. It clearly effected more than one course.

[RoT]

Agree with earlier comments a good event and EAOA are to be thanked. I must admit I didn’t have high expectations ( a Country Park next to Milton Keynes!) but it was enjoyable enough for what it was. Car Parking, Assembly, Prize Giving and weather were all excellent. Courses made best use of the limited terrain. Only grumble for a British Champs was the absence of a commentary….

[NeilC]

BO rules forbid the removal of legs at a championship event.

[Arnold]

The two controls in question were both on (very obvious) path junctions so while technically they might have been less than 60m apart I don't think you can say it was unfair. Plus it was a single person mispunching as far as I can tell?

Not that it makes a difference to my result (or the overall one), just a matter of principle.

[DJM]

To pick up on NeilC's point, sections 7.9 ands 7.10 of BOF Rules Appendix A deal with what to do when there is a problem with a course, e.g. when to void and when to remove splits, etc. Section 7.10 includes:-

7.10.5 If a serious problem has been identified, then a decision needs to be made as to what action to take. For level A events the following is recommended:

•If a problem is found to have affected the outcome of a race according to the above criterion, then the recommended solution is to void the course. In line with IOF policy, splits removal must not be considered as an option.

•If a serious problem is identified, but by using the criterion defined above, is not considered to have significantly affected the outcome of the race, then the results should be published without adjustment, other than to re-instate any competitor who failed to punch at a control that was missing or misplaced when they reached it.

The only options at Level A are to void the course or to leave the original results intact - removal of splits is not an option so it's clear that the published results must be reconsidered ...

[Snail]

I haven't checked elsewhere in the Rules for Level A events, but the wording of 7.10.5 above is clearly a recommendation and not a rule.

[buzz]

I also really enjoyed the event with a nice setup, great weather and a pleasant wood to run through - thanks very much to all the organizing team, but I don't think courses were of sufficient technical challenge for the British Middle Distance Championships. Any lessons for future events - perhaps there were restrictions imposed at a late stage which compromised the courses?

[HarryO]

The two controls in question were both on (very obvious) path junctions so while technically they might have been less than 60m apart I don't think you can say it was unfair. Plus it was a single person mispunching as far as I can tell?

I agree with Arnold. I had 149 - as I approached the control at first path junction (150) I checked the number and ran on to 149. Both controls were very obvious.

[DJM]

I haven't checked elsewhere in the Rules for Level A events, but the wording of 7.10.5 above is clearly a recommendation and not a rule.

Yes, it's unfortunate that the word "recommended" appears in the preamble as this masks the mandatory part of 7.10.5 which follows (my capitalisation):-

"In line with IOF policy, splits removal MUST NOT be considered as an option."

The next clause (7.10.6) adds weight to this:-

For events at a lower level then the option to remove splits either side of a problem control, or to start or finish the race at an alternative point, can be considered as a possible solution to an affected race.

The clear implication is that splits removal cannot be considered as an option at Level A.

[pete.owens]

The two controls in question were both on (very obvious) path junctions so while technically they might have been less than 60m apart I don't think you can say it was unfair. Plus it was a single person mispunching as far as I can tell?

They might well have been obvious path junctions, but the issue is that they not obviously different features. Someone has navigated to very close to their control in the terrain and found a kite on a feature matching their control description.

[sborrill]

The two controls in question were both on (very obvious) path junctions so while technically they might have been less than 60m apart I don't think you can say it was unfair. Plus it was a single person mispunching as far as I can tell?

Map scale was 1:7500 and inner diameter of control circle was 7.5mm, meaning control circle diameter represented 56.25m on the ground. So the inner radius (error from correct control) was just over 23m.