Removing Legs

[King Penguin]

Prompted by events at the JK Middle on saturday I would like to re-open the old debate about what should be done if a control is in the wrong place.
I wish to propose (again) that in my opinion the least bad outcome would be to remove the legs before and after the control(s) affected. I know the rules do not allow this at present, but why not ? To me it would be a far less bad outcome than voiding the whole course.
The only agument for why not I have heard is that a problem control could affect different people in different ways. Some might put it out of their mind and get on with the rest of the course and some might think what's the point and give up.
My argument is that if the rules allowed this to be done where appropriate and everyone knew about it then they should know to carry on to the best of their ability. It would / should be part of the mental approach to the sport, and not too much different to dealing with a personal mistake on a leg where the control is in the correct place.

What are the views of others on this forum ?

[NeilC]

Here are a couple for starters

A leading competitor makes a mistake on the leg following a misplaced control (a mistake unrelated to the misplacement). That mistake is removed and that competitor wins.

An early competitor encounters the misplaced control, knowing that the legs either side will be removed, takes it easy on the next leg (which could be a long one) using it to plan the rest of the course whereas a later competitor encounters the control in the right place (the rules state that an attempt should be made to correct any identified error) and doesn't have that opportunity.

If you consider removing the leg just to the misplaced control what do you do with the competitor who reaches the correct location, finds no control - assumes that it has been removed/misplaced and just carries on?

[Snail]

Even for major UK events it isn't practical to operate a quarantine system. So it is quite common for later starters to pick up rumours, and possibly specific details, of an error before they start. If they know a couple of legs will be removed they don't have to go anywhere near the affected control and save themselves for the rest of the course.

[Homer]

....or even use the 'time out' to recce the rest of the course.

[DJM]

I wish to propose (again) that in my opinion the least bad outcome would be to remove the legs before and after the control(s) affected. I know the rules do not allow this at present, but why not ? To me it would be a far less bad outcome than voiding the whole course.

Don't forget that there is also the option to let the results stand and, in some situations, this is the least unfair outcome. This whole issue is covered in depth by Appendix A 7.9.3, which includes

If it can be established that a serious problem is unlikely to have affected the top runners in a race, then no action should be taken

7.9.3 then continues by discussing who the "top runners" might be and how to judge whether or not they were affected.

Indeed, the whole of Appendix A section 7.8 (Results adjustment) and 7.9 (Voiding courses and adjusting results) is central to this thread.

[pete.owens]

And this is the key issue.

For important events where you are giving out medals and deciding who is the champion then the result should either be who completed the course fastest, rather than an arbitrarily changed result decided after the event by the decision of a jury to retrospectively alter the course. If the problem with the course wouldn't change the outcome then let the result stand - if it does the the course was not fair and should be voided.

For less important events - where you are trying to give the best outcome to everybody in the field then it might be appropriate to remove legs.

There are also circumstances where it is more important to have results - say the heats for a WOC final, or a Compasssport Cup heat.

[housewife]

Someone recently showed me software on which an orienteering map could be downloaded which would use GPS to show you exactly where you were. Is this something that is used regularly? If maps are LiDAR produced they should be spatially correct and so GPS should produce an accurate control location.

[ben_mitchell]

GPS is generally unreliable on forested slopes, and if planners start relying on it for placing controls then this will become a new trend.

I would suggest it is only used as a helpful guide to quickly locate where you are on the screen.

During mapping it's common to need to shift point features from their exact real-world positions to improve legibility.

If a planner and controller can't confidently place a control on a feature using only the competition map then the feature should not be used as a control site.

[DJM]

OCAD Sketch does this (amongst others) and, as a controller, I wouldn't check control sites any other way. You still have to make allowances for GPS accuracy however.

[King Penguin]

In response to a few of the replies so far :
"if the top places are not affected let the results stand, otherwise void the course" - so is the competition only about the top few ? What about the majority of also-rans; don't they matter, are they to be ignored ? How about being fair to them ? They have paid just as much for their entry and deserve equal treatment.

Here are a couple for starters

(1) A leading competitor makes a mistake on the leg following a misplaced control (a mistake unrelated to the misplacement). That mistake is removed and that competitor wins.

(2) An early competitor encounters the misplaced control, knowing that the legs either side will be removed, takes it easy on the next leg (which could be a long one) using it to plan the rest of the course whereas a later competitor encounters the control in the right place (the rules state that an attempt should be made to correct any identified error) and doesn't have that opportunity.

(3) If you consider removing the leg just to the misplaced control what do you do with the competitor who reaches the correct location, finds no control - assumes that it has been removed/misplaced and just carries on?

re. (1) rub of the green, you win some, you lose some. In this case that competitor benefits. Life isn't always 100% fair. Is it really more fair to void the course and deny many people what might otherwise have been a good result for them ? See also possible max. timeout in (2) below which means a big mistake on the leg away from the affected control would still be penalised.

re. (2) could be mitigated by a max. timeout rule e.g. if 5 is the affected control, max. time to be removed for 4-6 is 1.5x fastest time 4-6 (or some such factor) (similar to a timed-out road crossing). This would encourage people to continue to push to 6 and not take ages to rest / plan ahead. Should work where 4-5-6 does not avoid a major dogleg. Granted there is a risk if those legs are V-shaped and someone saves a lot of time by going slowly direct from 4-6 and nowhere near 5. Stress in the rules "spirit of fair play, everyone must navigate via every control location even if they think legs may be removed". Not much different to someone punching or passing through an "uncrossable" hedge to shortcut.

re. (3) I agree you have to remove both the leg to and from the problem control.

I agree removing legs would not be 100% fair, but neither is voiding the course and no-one getting any result. By definition the question only arises because something has already gone wrong. The question is what is the least bad outcome, not how can we make it 100% right because we never can.

[buzz]

OCAD Sketch does this (amongst others) and, as a controller, I wouldn't check control sites any other way. You still have to make allowances for GPS accuracy however.

I hope you would check the control site in other ways - there are all sorts of other issues that GPS location doesn't cover.

[buzz]

We had one of the misplaced controls (87 marsh) and of the half a dozen competitors I asked no one else noticed it was blatantly in the wrong place (bottom of the reentrant instead of half way up the slope) - they didn't read the descriptions and just saw the flag punched the control and ran on.

Half of them proceeded to lose time on the following short leg because they were starting the leg from the wrong place. Should you remove the following leg or let it stand because they weren't paying attention at the previous leg and deserved to be punished?

[Scott]

OCAD Sketch does this (amongst others) and, as a controller, I wouldn't check control sites any other way. You still have to make allowances for GPS accuracy however.

I hope you would check the control site in other ways - there are all sorts of other issues that GPS location doesn't cover.

Indeed - while I'm sure GPS can be a helpful additional tool, I would have thought it pretty fundamental to ensuring that a control site is fair that it should be checked primarily using the methods that you're expecting the competitors to use to find it, i.e. a printed map and a compass.

[pete.owens]

I tend to set up the course as a maprun checksites course. It helps check you are roughly in the right vicinity, rather than a parallel location that appears to fit the map, so can save time. But it is not a substitute for map reading nor precise enough to locate control sites.

[sborrill]

Prompted by events at the JK Middle on saturday I would like to re-open the old debate about what should be done if a control is in the wrong place.
I wish to propose (again) that in my opinion the least bad outcome would be to remove the legs before and after the control(s) affected. I know the rules do not allow this at present, but why not ? To me it would be a far less bad outcome than voiding the whole course.

What are the views of others on this forum ?

I spent the whole of Saturday evening in the company of a number of elite DrongOs, including the final winner, and it was still being debated by the time I gave up and went to bed (to be fair, they did need to wait to find out what was happening with their start times for Sunday). Luckily the Boat Race gave us a brief respite even though there was controversy there too.

I asked the question about why not just void the legs and it was suggested that it would tend to clump competitors (who were seeded, remember) into trains thus removing much of competition for the rest of the course after the misplaced control.