The various course planning software packages have simple tools to identify pairs of controls that are too close - for example Event Audit in Purple Pen. Controllers do need to use those tools.
If unfortunately (as it appears in this case) two controls (149 & 150) end up being too close together, there should generally no need to remove legs from the times which can, itself introduce extra unfairness. Since the controls were so close, the competitor who punched the wrong control won't have run much (if any) less distance and so they can simply be reinstated.
2022 British Middles
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: 2022 British Middles
Chair
IOF Rules Commission
IOF Rules Commission
- david_rosen
- white
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:09 pm
Re: 2022 British Middles
Controls 150 and 149 were on the Yellow/M10/W10 course, where 150 wasn't strictly required, and also on the White course, where 150 was required as a decision point. I presume the easy control was included on M45 to guide competitors around the OOB.
While I get that this is a championship so the rules should be applied, I can't help feeling that protesting about a path junction is the wrong example to set to our junior competitors, who we guide very clearly to check all their control codes, and take as a learning opportunity when they make a mistake.
One thing that confused me: prizes were presented for M45 but not for M40, since it was noted there was a protest. Was there a separate issue on M40, or was there a mixup on which course was impacted?
That said, I really enjoyed the event, as did the children: the courses were enjoyable and made good use of the area; the arena was a good size and had a nice atmosphere. Caterers were decent quality and it was good to see CompassPoint getting plenty of business.
While I get that this is a championship so the rules should be applied, I can't help feeling that protesting about a path junction is the wrong example to set to our junior competitors, who we guide very clearly to check all their control codes, and take as a learning opportunity when they make a mistake.
One thing that confused me: prizes were presented for M45 but not for M40, since it was noted there was a protest. Was there a separate issue on M40, or was there a mixup on which course was impacted?
That said, I really enjoyed the event, as did the children: the courses were enjoyable and made good use of the area; the arena was a good size and had a nice atmosphere. Caterers were decent quality and it was good to see CompassPoint getting plenty of business.
- timsmith
- off string
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:54 am
- Location: London
Re: 2022 British Middles
Surely the rules exist to provide a fair competition for all. “6.1. The spirit of fairness and good fellowship is to be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport, including the interpretation of these Rules.”
At an international level fairness to the medal-winners is paramount and rules have thus been created to try to ensure this.
As a national level in an inclusive sport, I believe that fairness should be extended to all competitors and even extended to the officials (“good fellowship?). Rules need to be considered in that light, not just being accepted because they are an IOF rule, even after “many hours of discussion around a table in Birmingham”. To have the only option after most errors on the course being to void the course penalises all affected competitors and makes the officials who made the mistake feel 10 times more guilty. To have a rule like that needs more justification and explanation. There is an argument that a course with two legs omitted is less fair than the full course, but it is impossible to make orienteering absolutely fair when a route one side of a thicket might encounter a fallen tree that the other side doesn’t have. No result at all is unfair to all.
At an international level fairness to the medal-winners is paramount and rules have thus been created to try to ensure this.
As a national level in an inclusive sport, I believe that fairness should be extended to all competitors and even extended to the officials (“good fellowship?). Rules need to be considered in that light, not just being accepted because they are an IOF rule, even after “many hours of discussion around a table in Birmingham”. To have the only option after most errors on the course being to void the course penalises all affected competitors and makes the officials who made the mistake feel 10 times more guilty. To have a rule like that needs more justification and explanation. There is an argument that a course with two legs omitted is less fair than the full course, but it is impossible to make orienteering absolutely fair when a route one side of a thicket might encounter a fallen tree that the other side doesn’t have. No result at all is unfair to all.
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: 2022 British Middles
But retrospectively changing the results of a race by arbitrarily excluding part of it is unfair to all the competitors (particularly anyone who nailed #5) not just the winners.
Now, at a local event where a control has been stolen it is an easy way of being able to produce a set of results that is not simply based on how persistent competitors were at searching for it. The trouble is that the adjustment is so easy to make leads to adjustments being made without thinking through the full consequences.
Even if removing splits was permissible at national championships it is an inappropriate course of action in this particular case. By all means reinstate the objector, who has a legitimate complaint, but there is no need to adjust everybody else's times. There was a control at the correct location, so no one lost time trying to find it or were thrown off course on the next leg.
Now, at a local event where a control has been stolen it is an easy way of being able to produce a set of results that is not simply based on how persistent competitors were at searching for it. The trouble is that the adjustment is so easy to make leads to adjustments being made without thinking through the full consequences.
Even if removing splits was permissible at national championships it is an inappropriate course of action in this particular case. By all means reinstate the objector, who has a legitimate complaint, but there is no need to adjust everybody else's times. There was a control at the correct location, so no one lost time trying to find it or were thrown off course on the next leg.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: 2022 British Middles
pete.owens wrote:But retrospectively changing the results of a race by arbitrarily excluding part of it is unfair to all the competitors
More unfair than no result at all when the course is voided?
I'm not even sure I'm right when I said
Fairness to the medal winners needs them all to get to race. What happens at WMOC if a few qualifying heats are voided but not all? How many people denied a run in the final will come back next year?PG wrote:At an international level fairness to the medal-winners is paramount and rules have thus been created to try to ensure this.
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: 2022 British Middles
PG wrote:What happens at WMOC if a few qualifying heats are voided but not all?
A gigantic headache for the organisers and the SEA team is what happens! But I would like to think that a way would be found to let all run in the Finals and potential winners to be able to race for their medals too.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 975
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: 2022 British Middles
Full details of the complaint, protest and Jury decision with respect to Course 4 are now available on the Middle Champs website.
-
Simon E - green
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:13 pm
- Location: St Albans
Re: 2022 British Middles
PG wrote:More unfair than no result at all when the course is voided?
But it's clear from replies above that a potential Jury of myself, david_rosen and NeilC (all qualified to serve at Level A) would let the original results stand, should the decision get to the Jury.
The "void" word is not relevant in this example ...
A bit later: and, having just read the full jury decision, it seems that the real jury and the potential one above are in agreement
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 975
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: 2022 British Middles
PG wrote: What happens at WMOC if a few qualifying heats are voided but not all?
Well this is what happened at at EOC in 2014:
http://www.eoc2014.fpo.pt/index.php/en/198-organizing-committee-statement-middle-distance
Which seems OTT to me. Even if you allow everyone to qualify from the voided heat I don't see why that is unfair to those who didn't make the cut on the other heats.
But, whoever finished 17th in that race would have been a bit miffed if the organisers had rejigged the results by excluding a couple of legs and as a result they were excluded from the final.
I think what could have been done in that case (a heat rather than a final) would be to let the result stand, but allow additional individuals to qualify for the final if they were in the top 17 at the preceding control OR they were in the top 17 on results calculated with excluded legs.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: 2022 British Middles
I applaud the jury for a very thorough and well argumented decision.
However I note there is a 4th option that had not been considered, "disqualify the competitor as they did not visit all controls".
I'm not saying the jury would have chosen that outcome but I am surprised that it was not included in the option set. I assume there was an implicit assumption that because the separation rule had been broken, this was not an option?
I guess ultimately no outcome is satisfactory and at least there was no tangible advantage gained by not punching control 149. On the other hand, it does set a somewhat concerning precedent of "it's ok not to check your control codes as long as you're roughly in the right area"...
However I note there is a 4th option that had not been considered, "disqualify the competitor as they did not visit all controls".
I'm not saying the jury would have chosen that outcome but I am surprised that it was not included in the option set. I assume there was an implicit assumption that because the separation rule had been broken, this was not an option?
I guess ultimately no outcome is satisfactory and at least there was no tangible advantage gained by not punching control 149. On the other hand, it does set a somewhat concerning precedent of "it's ok not to check your control codes as long as you're roughly in the right area"...
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 731
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: 2022 British Middles
Arnold wrote:However I note there is a 4th option that had not been considered, "disqualify the competitor as they did not visit all controls".
It was implicitly considered as the Jury was actually ruling on a second objection made by the person who was displaced by the previous decision to reinstate the competitor who had punched the wrong control.
IMO they came to the right decision.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: 2022 British Middles
Great work jury. Good decision and nice explanation.
It would be good if we could have a similar explanation as to what happened with regard to the protest at the British Nights. Always better to be open and transparent rather than brush stuff under the carpet...
It would be good if we could have a similar explanation as to what happened with regard to the protest at the British Nights. Always better to be open and transparent rather than brush stuff under the carpet...
-
Homer - diehard
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:10 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: 2022 British Middles
One slightly concerning issue is that the writeup is so open that everybody can identify exactly which individuals made the protests.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: 2022 British Middles
pete.owens wrote:One slightly concerning issue is that the writeup is so open that everybody can identify exactly which individuals made the protests.
What is "bad" about making a protest?
I think the whole attitude around protests is part of the problem. People are generally afraid to put in a protest, especially when there is a feeling that it may well end up with the whole course voided and be taken quite badly by the event team.
I really like the jury (and event team's) approach to openess.
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: 2022 British Middles
timsmith wrote:One thing that confused me: prizes were presented for M45 but not for M40, since it was noted there was a protest. Was there a separate issue on M40, or was there a mixup on which course was impacted?
No issue on M40 AFAIK, and if this was the case I'm glad I didn't hang around after my early start to NOT receive my gold medal before I had to drive 7hrs+ home
Run 'in' forests, run
- forest grump
- off string
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:45 pm
- Location: Clackmannanshire
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 49 guests