Missing Control

[Vidalos]

Does anybody know what rules apply where a control is found to be missing on a course?

What is the normal course of action then taken to negate the effect on competitors?

[graeme]

2.7
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/a ... ppi1p0.pdf

and

3.2 and 3.3
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/a ... ppg1p0.pdf

[Vidalos]

Thanks Graeme. Situation relates to BOC where on Mini Relay control 4 (170) was missing on the first leg turning leg between 3 and 5 into TD 3 or 4 beyond TD 2 for mini relay. A number of juniors could not then navigate easily from 3 (past missing 4) to 5
Many juniors affected and upset

[mat-d]

missing controls... shocking!

[Kitch]

2.7.2
It may be appropriate to consider adjusting results in certain situations. These may include controls that are stolen or vandalised and planning errors such as misplaced controls or incorrect codes.
It should certainly not be used as and excuse for poor planning or controlling.

---------

exactly how would you conclude that misplaced controls or incorrect codes were not the result of poor controlling ????!!!
the clause even states that misplaced controls or incorrect codes are planning errors

[Vidalos]

Thanks to those who have pointed out the applicable rules. I could get very irate about how this was treated but this is not the place.

But a missing control that places a competitor in position of not knowing how to get to the next control evidently does not affect the results !!!!

Officials would not remove legs even though they had done on courses the previous day (so whats different about relays?)

The Jury then abicates responsibility to make decision to void course by saying

"even though we agree with you, you do realise that if you keep your appeal we will have to void the course, do you want to do that?"

It's the officials and juries that have the duty and responsibility to apply the rules properly not place decision making onto appealants. If the rules are wrong change them. If the rules are unpalatble that does not negate them being applied

[graeme]

So what's different about relays is that they are head to head races. I think the decision to remove legs at the individual was straightforward and right (i.e. I think the rules are dumb). At the relay its a much harder call and I'm really glad I wasn't on that jury.

But they aren't abdicating responsibility, they've decided not to take the leg out. They've decided the course must be void, but if your protest only asked for the leg to be taken out, I think its right for them to recheck with you before they void the course. Given what you write, I don't understand why you didn't stick with the protest.

The only downside is if others are deterred from protesting because you protest is already in, then you are talked out of it.

[Vidalos]

Interesting view Graeme

But when competitors come into download and a control is missing from all competitors does it need a competitor to protest !

Wouldn't the software automatically dq every one?

Doesn't someone have to overrule the DQ and on what authority/basis?

Shouldn't the rules be automatically applied?

[awk]

I find this idea that it must take a protest before a course is declared void rather odd, to put it mildly. It shouldn't require a competitor to take the initiative: if a result is sufficiently skewed by an aberration, then the 'referee' should simply step in and say so. It's unfortunate if a particular race is declared void, but at least it's honest.

Problem is, we don't really have an independent referee, because as often as not, the controller is involved.

[Snail]

Not sure that it is ever right for a jury to put pressure on a competitor to withdraw a protest - if it thinks that the correct decision is to void a course, or whatever, then it should do so.

Questionable anyway whether, in a case such as this where the impact is apparently on many competitors, suggesting a protest be withdrawn complies with App G 3.2.2:

a single protest should be given as much consideration as if all the affected competitors had made a protest.

Of course if anyone disagrees with the jury decision in this case they could still appeal...

[Ed]

Taking Graham's idea to a different sport, a football referee should never blow their whistle until the other side feel hard-done enough to make a protest.

Which is clearly madness (even if professional footballers seem to think that that *is* the rule!)

It shouldn't be down to individual competitors to see that rules and fairness are upheld.

I agree with Andrew, maybe we need an independent referee for major orienteering events who is in no way involved in the preparation of the event (not the controller, i.e. any problems are then definitely not his/her fault) but who can listen to competitors at the finish and even go out into the area to make their own initial judgement and if they feel that rules/fairness has been breached then they can make the formal complaint/protest to the organising team, i.e. in terms of the organisation of the event they would have an entirely reactive role, as opposed to the controllers proactive role (the controller tries to stop the disaster happening, the referee decides what to do for the benefit of the competitors and the competition once the disaster has already happened)

No competitor then has to make the decision as to whether or not to make themselves unpopular by getting a course voided.

[EddieH]

Whatever you do the fact is that the jury/referee will have their own bias. In fact generally people that get these jobs are pretty strong willed. It is obvious from comments on the British that Graeme and I will bend over backwards not to void a course whereas Bendover would be likely to do so quickly.
I think the reason why a protest is required is that in most cases most (even all) people would rather have a result, than a total wash-out.
I have only protested with the intention of getting a course voided once, and that was in a World Masters and was because with 2 qualification days there could still be a perfectly valid qualification on the second day.

[Vidalos]

Thanks Eddie, I agree with you and the reasonable course of action is therefore to remove legs either side of the affected control, then there is a result

The final part of this unfortunate series of events is there is now a set of results where the control has been removed from the course (else people would be DQ) but the time for the control is left in !!! How can that be acceptable, fair, right , what ever you want to call it !!

But after all it was only the Mini Relay so it doesn't matter does it !

Will you be the next to be affected by this and have to go through this rigmarole?

So what's going to be different the next time this happens? And it will

Or will it take an Elite course to be affected before change happens

[SJC]

So what's different about relays is that they are head to head races.

I have to agree with Graeme here. Relays are often decided by a head to head race over the last few controls, where all sorts of tactics come into play and the only result that matters is who is the first over the line. The actual time difference is irrelevant.

Imagine winning such a race, only to be told that 2.00 minutes is being taken off your team's time, but 2.30 from your oppenents, from something that happened right at the start of the race.

The jury only had two choices. Leave the results as they stood or void the whole race. Anything elee would be ridiculous.

[Vidalos]

OK I can see that point

But the incident put several teams who were in the leading group and who were in contention right out of it

So why don't the jury fulfil their responsibilities and void the course?

This is all about bringing it to peoples attention to try an effect some sort of change to stop this happening again

So what do you think should be different in the future?