Eden Event

[JennyJ]

it wasn't the olive green it was the black green (hedge type symbol) and it was the wrong shade but this was in the pre-race details.

I made a mistake but in doing so I cheated. You can cheat by mistake I think!

[Mrs H]

Sorry to sound so pedantic - but I think it is an important point - no you can't cheat by mistake it is contrary to the definition of the word - which is built on deliberate deception or fraud.

All I really mean is that if we eradicate the causes of such mistakes (bad maps and ignorant orienteers) then we are left with cheating - which should be dealt with severely. Until we get to that point it's going to be very difficult to deal with it fairly and appropriately.

Mind you that sounds like I'm advocating killing the ignorant orienteers - that might be a bit harsh - even by my standards

[awk]

All I really mean is that if we eradicate the causes of such mistakes (bad maps and ignorant orienteers) then we are left with cheating - which should be dealt with severely. Until we get to that point it's going to be very difficult to deal with it fairly and appropriately.

I don't think you can ever eliminate mistakes by 'ignorant' orienteers. We have all landed up on occasions in places without meaning or wanting to be there, and misread things on a map.

[JennyJ]

In that case I mean gain an unfair advantage - in my case if I hadn't then disqualified myself once I was aware that I had done it I would have cheated!
I don't mean to imply that people are maliciously cheating all over the place in sprint races but if you gain an unfair advantage by breaking the rules in sport then there needs to be some comeback.
I didn't mean to upset anyone with this.

[EddieH]

Well said Jenny. I note how good the elite world wide are at disqualifying themselves when they realise they have made an inadvertant mistake of this type. After all orienteering is a time trial over a course. If you fail to complete the course then what mindset says that your result should stand?

At the JK sprint I ran past a control when thinking ahead. However later on I misread a small white block in olive green as enabling me to cut a corner (literally 2 steps). The marks on the ground confirmed others had done so. Nevertheless I would reluctantly have DQ'd myself when I realised had I not already done it comprehensively. The only thing that makes this decision hard is the full knowledge that many others would not do so.

(Similarly I would DQ myself if I were in need of asking someone else where I was.)

[Mrs H]

But the problem is you are actually relying on people knowing that they have transgressed in order to disqualify themselves.

It would be interesting to know how many of the people who had obviously made the mistake you did Eddie realised they had done so and how many were cheating.

I think education is the only answer (of the runners and the map makers) then at least you could be reasonably sure of the answer.

[youngladdie]

Mrs H said: "... then we are left with cheating - which should be dealt with severely. Until we get to that point it's going to be very difficult to deal with it fairly and appropriately.
Mind you that sounds like I'm advocating killing the ignorant orienteers - that might be a bit harsh - even by my standards"

But birching them maybe more appropriate!?

[EddieH]

My point Mrs H is that I was not cheating at the time - however I gained (an albeit minute advantage) by running too fast and taking an illegal route. Ergo I failed to complete the course (missed control aside) and therefore do not belong in the results.

I tend to agree with naming and shaming of blatant transgressors. In Jenny's case that is obviously inappropriate.

[Mrs H]

I think we are all talking about the same thing - it's finding a workable solution that's the problem.
I agree -naming and shaming may be appropriate for cheats - but I'm not sure it's appropriate for the "honest" mistake which results in an unfair advantage - perhaps a quiet word resulting in a "withdrawn" instead of DSQ in the results.

This would make it clear in the results that the transgressor had DSQ themselves - an honourable move - as opposed to being disqualified for any other reason. This would remove the onerous job of actually doing the naming and shaming as such and people who were genuinely DSQ for missing out a control would be obvious from the splits and should be put in the results as MP.

I just don't think that someone like Jenny should be tarred with the same brush as someone who deliberately jumps over an uncrossable wall. Some folk might be reluctant to owning up to their mistakes if they fear it looks like they were caught cheating in the results - this would be an elegant way to mark the difference and may result in more people owning up to honest mistakes.

Do you think that might work?

[EddieH]

I think it a really nice idea, but it would require a large paradigm shift. I have never considered disqualification as carrying any shame as punching a wrong control is often described as disqualified.

[Mrs H]

Yes and wrongly so in my opinion. If you miss a control out of a course and don't get a result you tell your friends that you mispunched and you say you retired if that's what you did - you don't say you have been disqualified even if that is what it says in the results.

It must be quite disconcerting for beginners to see they have been DSQ in the results when all they did was miss out a control or gave up half way round. It's more user friendly for everyone and I'm sure the computers can see the difference between a MP and a RET. DSQ and Wthdrawn will need manual input - but then the latter would have done so anyway to over-ride the results.

I think I'll write a CS article about it

[JennyJ]

It's in Norwegian but basically they have created a sprint fairplay logo:
http://www.opn.no/jan-kocbach-ville-ha- ... 22786.html

which the Italians have just borrowed for their Sprint Champs too.

fair_play.jpg (54.86 KiB) Viewed 11133 times

[Garnon]

By the way, RouteGadget is now up for the Eden Project Event:

http://www.kerno.routegadget.co.uk/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi

So it will be interesting to see whether those that went across uncrossable features, intentionally or not, show it on their RouteGadget.

[Red Adder]

Part of the problem with urban O is that is often has dog-legs and circuitous routes that would never be designed in X-country - and then is presented with connecting straight lines crossing all sorts of boundaries and OOB areas whereas in X-country lines are shown avoiding such boundaries and areas. Combine that with a newish set of symbols and its not surpring some mistakes occur from competitors and volunteer organisers alike in these early days. With more exposure I'm sure we will learn - rants about cheating and DSQs don't really help and would put me off organising one.

[Roger]

It's in Norwegian but basically they have created a sprint fairplay logo

Nice.

I organised a summer evening urban race last year. In the legend, the uncrossable symbols were grouped together, emphasised and headlined 'do not cross these features'. Although of course virtually nobody reads the legend during a race, we did give out maps before the mass start (face-down) so I reprinted the 'uncrossable features' block on the back of the map and gave everyone 30s or so to study it, and ask questions if necessary, before yelling 'go'.

For a 'normal' event, we could do something similar in the start lanes: the official on the front line doesn't let competitors start until they have acknowledged that they understand the symbols and their meanings.

BTW, I agree that uncrossable features sometimes need to be enlarged beyond their 'natural' sizes: I find it difficult to determine the thickness of a very short line (e.g. an uncrossable wall blocking a narrow alley), and difficult to see the colour of a thin green stripe (flower bed or impassable vegetation). The 'hedge' symbol is thick enough, though.

The other unusual modification that's sometimes needed is to cut circles and lines to show where you can't go (i.e. that an uncrossable boundary is continuous, or that buildings join corner-to-corner without a gap), as well as to show openings. I've suffered more than once on this one, although in one instance there was a strong element of wishful thinking.