first of all thanks to the organisers/planners for a great weekend of high speed (for the winners anyway!) racing.
however - i think there is one issue that needs to be discussed from the weekend, and as i don't have anything better to do having just got home, i thought i might as well start the conversation.
basically its to do with the jury's decision to reinstate a number of competitors who didn't register every control point in the qualifying races.
for those of you who weren't there, the sprint race was run using the new EMIT 'Hands Free Punching' technology. the premise is that you merely need to pass your emit brick within a metre of a sensor on the control flag for it register as 'punched'. in reality the practised technique is to 'hit' the control flag as you pass by. the system was, in my opinion excellent.
problems occured however, when some athleted used 'series 2' emit bricks, which needed to be poisitioned more centrally to the sensor when 'punching'. several competitors failed to do this and thus didn't register punches. it is worth bearing in mind that 'series 3' bricks were available to hire for the weekend at £1 a day.
the protest was made, to the best of my knowledge, on the premise that the event instructions did not give sufficent instructions to users of 'series 2' bricks as to the punching action. the protest was upheld, and some runners were reinstated for the final.
Now, my grief is not with these athletes and i do not doubt their integrity or that they visited the controls. i'm not finger pointing at individuals.
however, i do think that the wrong decision was made by the jury, for the specific reason that there was, ultimately, no proof that the controls had been visited by the athletes in question. only last weekend James Tullie was disqualified at the BUSA relays for not having registered a punch on the final control, even though everyone saw him visit the point. i believe that the precedent for these decisions was set by SYO's disqualification at the British Relay's a couple of years back. No registered punch, no result. as simple as that. on saturday, noone saw the athletes visiting the points that didn't register.
We're lucky to compete in a sport that has extremely high standards of fair play, because in my opinion the jury's decision in the qualifiers set a dangerous precedent for the final. the controls were unmanned, so surely a competitor using a 'series 2' card could have missed a control on purpose to save time and simply claim a 'faulty punch technique due to being misinformed'. it's not as if a meeting for all athletes was called and the situation explained before the final. or was there? i was in tesco's...
so that's my main problem - the jury's decision i think has set a problematical situation for future use of the new punching system.
there is of course a simple solution that would have eliminated the problem before it had happened - an insistence on every competitor using the 'series 3' card. I suppose a parrallel of this is competitive sailing classes where every competitor uses the same model of boat - everyone has the same technology, and the competition is left down to personal skill and ability. perhaps in the future at the premier events there can be an insistence upon standard 'punching equipment' for all competitors.
i look forward to hearing peoples opinions.
BEOC Sprints
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
51 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
I agree that it seemed a bit bizarre - there was a model event to try out the system and plenty of opportunity to hire a series-3 as had been strongly advised.
Were these problems the reason for a punching (rather than swipe) finish in the final?
Was there any reason why they didn't just use the run-through finish system(the finish time is registered as you run though the finish as used at the November Classic a couple of years ago)? That would have been really sensible for an event where seconds seemed to count for the elite runners.
Besides that though, an excellent race - never done a sprint before, but will certainly do more in the future. (The terrain for next year's sprint is a lot more technical!!)
Were these problems the reason for a punching (rather than swipe) finish in the final?
Was there any reason why they didn't just use the run-through finish system(the finish time is registered as you run though the finish as used at the November Classic a couple of years ago)? That would have been really sensible for an event where seconds seemed to count for the elite runners.
Besides that though, an excellent race - never done a sprint before, but will certainly do more in the future. (The terrain for next year's sprint is a lot more technical!!)
- mikey
- diehard
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: here and there
As someone close to the Jury, perhaps I could add some of the factors which influenced the decision:-
The Final Details said "EMIT cards with a display are strongly recommended for the sprint race. If you are using a version 2 EMIT card you will be disadvantaged in the sprint."
The juxtaposition of these two sentences clearly implies that type 2 users are disadvantaged because there is no display. Nowhere does it say that type 2 cards are far less sensitive than type 3 and have to be placed directly onto a marked part of the control flag.
So, as far as competitors were concerned, there should have been no difference between the punching action needed when using the two cards. And without a display it was hard to tell if a correct punch had been registered too.
Yes, the organisers did put on a model course to try out the system and yes, all should have used it. But there was no compulsion to do so and some half a dozen or so sompetitors with type 2 cards suffered the consequences.
So, where did the fault lie? I think that the Jury reckoned that whilst it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure they understand the punching system, it was also the organisers' responsibility to ensure that it was absolutely clear what to do. In particular the difference betseen type 2 and type 3 cards should have been explained, and was not.
And don't forget that, for most competitors, this was the first time such a system had been used. So a British Championships was being used to trial some new and very different kit.
Given all these factors, the Jury decided to give the benefit of doubt to those who'd run with type 2 EMIT cards. They would not have been so generous had the same thing happened in the Final, given that the issue was well known by the time the Final started and that runners were offered type 3 cards also.
David
The Final Details said "EMIT cards with a display are strongly recommended for the sprint race. If you are using a version 2 EMIT card you will be disadvantaged in the sprint."
The juxtaposition of these two sentences clearly implies that type 2 users are disadvantaged because there is no display. Nowhere does it say that type 2 cards are far less sensitive than type 3 and have to be placed directly onto a marked part of the control flag.
So, as far as competitors were concerned, there should have been no difference between the punching action needed when using the two cards. And without a display it was hard to tell if a correct punch had been registered too.
Yes, the organisers did put on a model course to try out the system and yes, all should have used it. But there was no compulsion to do so and some half a dozen or so sompetitors with type 2 cards suffered the consequences.
So, where did the fault lie? I think that the Jury reckoned that whilst it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure they understand the punching system, it was also the organisers' responsibility to ensure that it was absolutely clear what to do. In particular the difference betseen type 2 and type 3 cards should have been explained, and was not.
And don't forget that, for most competitors, this was the first time such a system had been used. So a British Championships was being used to trial some new and very different kit.
Given all these factors, the Jury decided to give the benefit of doubt to those who'd run with type 2 EMIT cards. They would not have been so generous had the same thing happened in the Final, given that the issue was well known by the time the Final started and that runners were offered type 3 cards also.
David
- David May
I think I should start a save EUOC 2s BUSA bronze medal fund! I don't know what the official line on all this is, but when I protested to the controller at BUSA he said it was the competitors responsibility to ensure the punched all the controls correctly, and that was that.... As an aside, I was using a series 3 emit block (I think, it was one of the ones with the screen on anyway), and i did touch it against the unit... aye, emit's...
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali
-
J.Tullster - diehard
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Dalkieth Road
in response to david -
all this doesn't address the fact that there is no proof that the controls were visited. and the crux of an orienteering race is to prove that you have visited all the controls.
all this doesn't address the fact that there is no proof that the controls were visited. and the crux of an orienteering race is to prove that you have visited all the controls.
Last edited by bendover on Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
bendover - addict
- Posts: 1459
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:00 am
- Location: London
but we still have a situation where people could have failed to complete their course yet been given a result. i'm sure all the affected runners did compete the course correctly, but mistakes do happen - as i found out last weekend - and should be punished accordingly.
what if there had been no heats and the championships had been decide purely on a final? would runners have been given the benefit of the doubt then? or would the event have been void? and why should the outcome be any different because this occured in the heats?
an alternate viewpoint which occured to me: in the final information it clearly stated that there would be old fashioned punches at all controls, and if a unit had failed it was the competitors responsibility to punch their map if a unit failed. this didn't happen, but if it had how could the 'version 2' competitors have checked? - there are led's on the flags but i never noticed them in the sprint, i was checking using the display on my brikke.
i suppose you could even say that the version 2 card users should have been watching for these red lights... i don't know. i really liked the new system and hope to use it again soon. and congratulations to nick b for putting all this parlarva behind him in the final with a sweet performance... just still not sure he should have been competitive.
what if there had been no heats and the championships had been decide purely on a final? would runners have been given the benefit of the doubt then? or would the event have been void? and why should the outcome be any different because this occured in the heats?
an alternate viewpoint which occured to me: in the final information it clearly stated that there would be old fashioned punches at all controls, and if a unit had failed it was the competitors responsibility to punch their map if a unit failed. this didn't happen, but if it had how could the 'version 2' competitors have checked? - there are led's on the flags but i never noticed them in the sprint, i was checking using the display on my brikke.
i suppose you could even say that the version 2 card users should have been watching for these red lights... i don't know. i really liked the new system and hope to use it again soon. and congratulations to nick b for putting all this parlarva behind him in the final with a sweet performance... just still not sure he should have been competitive.
-
rocky - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:28 pm
- Location: SW
"The Benefit of doubt" should not be used in British Elite Championships though.
It is very unfortunate. I have no doubt that the runners ran the races in those times. However, there is no evidence to say that they did not mispunch.
At the end of the day everyone was running the same course in the final, and I don't think start times really made a difference in that terrain.
I don't think anyone can really be blamed, its just bad british luck. Amusing though.
Oh, and I agree with Murray, the new system was great. No problems at all, despite some people making a fuss out of nothing, like punching at the finish...
It is very unfortunate. I have no doubt that the runners ran the races in those times. However, there is no evidence to say that they did not mispunch.
At the end of the day everyone was running the same course in the final, and I don't think start times really made a difference in that terrain.
I don't think anyone can really be blamed, its just bad british luck. Amusing though.
Oh, and I agree with Murray, the new system was great. No problems at all, despite some people making a fuss out of nothing, like punching at the finish...
Last edited by mharky on Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
mharky - team nopesport
- Posts: 4541
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:39 pm
Interesting you were mentioning those red flashing LEDs. They are pathetic! They're weak as pish, and not obvious, especially in the speed of a sprint race.
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali
-
J.Tullster - diehard
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Dalkieth Road
J.Tullster wrote:Interesting you were mentioning those red flashing LEDs. They are pathetic! They're weak as pish, and not obvious, especially in the speed of a sprint race.
yes they are, but for version 2 competitors they were the only way to check they punched correctly at every control - which they were told to do in the instructions.
-
rocky - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:28 pm
- Location: SW
Aye, fair enough, I was just making a point about those LEDs, stinking emit....
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali
-
J.Tullster - diehard
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Dalkieth Road
to be fair, despite the problems of the weekend, i think that the new emit system is potentially better than ident...
-
bendover - addict
- Posts: 1459
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:00 am
- Location: London
to be fair, despite the problems of the weekend, i think that the new emit system is potentially better than ident...
Aye, the hands free punching sounds ace, as long as it is reliable, which it apears it is with the series 3 card? To be fair to the people that were involved in the mispunches, if I had been DSQ'd in those circumstances I would have been really pissed off, especially because it's a new sytem, and some things weren't really clear. Since it was only in the heat anyway, I think it was the right decision to re-instate them. They still had to do it in the final, and it looks like Nick certainly proved he could do it!
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali
-
J.Tullster - diehard
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Dalkieth Road
51 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 171 guests