Twin Peaks Day 1 misplaced control

[King Penguin]

I'm also with Eddie - removing the legs is the "least bad" thing to do, and therefore the best solution.
I had a long protracted debate about this following a control which was completely missing on a JK day several years ago. Yes, I should have had enough confidence to know I was in the right place and just carry on, but the complete absence of any hint of control (including tape) at a major event persuaded me otherwise. The legs were not removed - because it did not affect the top placings. All the more reason in my view to remove them - ours is a "sport for all" not just for the elite few.

[yted]

Of course, as has been said, the only sensible option is to remove the legs either side of the misplaced control - once people know this will happen, they'll learn to carry on with the race.

[Homer]

once people know this will happen, they'll learn to carry on with the race.

...and Planners and Controllers won't bother to try too hard to make sure controls are in the right place to start with.

[AndyC]

If I had to void a leg on a course I'd planned or controlled and there had been no outside interference I would be deeply embarassed.

[Karen]

:there was a man just standing in the woods:

Probably the same one I saw a couple of times - I just assumed he was the planner

[LostAgain]

once people know this will happen, they'll learn to carry on with the race.

...and Planners and Controllers won't bother to try too hard to make sure controls are in the right place to start with.

and if what Spooker is saying is true then there is no penalty at all to the misplacement of the control. Take out the legs and the event still qualifies for allocation of ranking points also.

I agree with the removal of the legs concerned and the rebasing of the times, I just don't think that this then makes it OK for inclusion as a Ranking Course.

The removal of ranking status is sufficient to bring emphasis on the importance of the correct placement of controls, if any sanction is needed.

[RJ]

LostAgain, I think what you will find is that there will be a spate of formal complaints at events. Consequently some courses will be voided by the Jury. Others may stay if it is felt that most competitors were unaffected.

Personally I would be prepared to make a formal protest and ask for the voiding of the course. We must not get into the routine of accepting the 'removal of offending leg times' as a solution to the problem. Mistakes do happen.... I've made one or two myself.... but let us not dumb down the sport by accepting a next best substitute.

[graeme]

...and Planners and Controllers won't bother to try too hard to make sure controls are in the right place to start with.

absolutely the opposite. Leg taken out is a permanent record that something went wrong:
planners and controllers will be desperate to avoid that. Nowaday planners know they can just intimidate would-be protesters ("you don't really want to be the person responsible for spoiling everyone's fun by voiding the course do you?"), and nobody is any the wiser.

Whether this course/leg should be voided is moot. The splits show it didn't have a huge effect on positions (which is not an argument one way or t'other) but the do indicate there was a problem. The control was in the right feature, but not in the middle of the circle. It was so far out that I would be inclined to take it out, but it's a judgment call and I don't see leaving it in as a travesty.

As RJ says, mistakes do happen. We must give ourselves the option to deal with them as fairly as we can without lambasting the planner. Let's not dumb down the sport by ignoring mistakes and adding randomness to the results.

[Red Adder]

Back to the old void leg /course argument.

About 3-4 years ago I was flamed to the third degree for even suggesting you could void a leg to save a course so I'm pleased that more people are moving to this view. It won't make planners/ controllers less careful - I'm mortified if I get a site wrong and I suspect most others are too.

I'd also be more annoyed if ranking points were not awarded on a modified course - it would still be a fair comparison as the TD would not be changed and although it would be judged over shorter distance on the day everyone would still have had to run the full distance.

[DaveR]

and if what Spooker is saying is true then there is no penalty at all to the misplacement of the control. Take out the legs and the event still qualifies for allocation of ranking points also.

I agree with the removal of the legs concerned and the rebasing of the times, I just don't think that this then makes it OK for inclusion as a Ranking Course.

The removal of ranking status is sufficient to bring emphasis on the importance of the correct placement of controls, if any sanction is needed.

I find your attitude here rather bizarre. It seems you are looking to "punish" someone for having a misplaced control. It is not even clear what combination of planner, controller, organising club or even competitor that you feel should be punished.

Mistakes will occasionally happen, given the complex nature of the sport I think they happen remarkably rarely.

If there is a problem it is in unacknowledged mistakes. Currently very few people put in formal complaints because the two likely outcomes are
1) nothing
2) void course
Moving to the acceptance of occasionally voiding legs might actually lead to better feedback for the very few planners and controllers who are "resistant to opinions other than their own"

[andy]

there's only 1 solution to a problem like this: get it right in the first place.

voiding courses is too annoying and removing legs is plain stupid (I used to passionately support leg/split removal until I heard someone go through the obvious problems, there are lots! more so than voiding)

[pete.owens]

BOF Rules wrote:
3.1.1 Electronic punching offers what at first sight appears to be unlimited opportunities for adjusting results to overcome problems at an event. These include removing splits either side of a missing or mis-placed control or by redefining the control at which the race starts or finishes. It should be recognised that making such adjustments can affect the outcome of the race in many ways and should not be viewed as a simple means of converting an unfair race into a fair race.

3.1.2 Whilst it is always undesirable to void a race there will be circumstances, particularly in a major race, in which no other outcome is appropriate. Whilst removing splits may seem a fair solution, doing this does not turn an unfair race into a fair race and therefore this action should not be taken without giving serious consideration as to its fairness. An alternative to voiding is to let the results stand, and this is the recommended approach if any problem with a course is not believed to have significantly affected the outcome of the race.

Indeed, and this does not mean that the only options are letting things stand or voiding the whole course - just that a decision to void legs should not be taken lightly, but considered on the individual merits.

For example, if the leg in question had been a major route choice leg with only a small delay for those competitors who navigated accurately to the centre of the circle then voiding the leg would be not be appropriate. You would also be more reluctant to mess about with the results of a major competition.

However, in this particular case we are looking at a fairly short, fine navigation challenge, where the best orienteers will be avoiding unescessery height gain and traversing into the re-entrant just at the correct position. Weaker navigators taking the safe option, aiming off and coming down from the top of the re-entrant may not have even noticed that the control was in the wrong place.

Taking out the leg would be a small proportion of the course - and you could still retain the legs leaving the control as they both headed for very visible marked crossing points. I'm not saying that this would necessarily have been the right thing to do - but it could at least have been considered.

It is the call of the Organiser and Controller (and Jury) as to how they solve the complaint. Just removing the splits either side of the misplaced control doesn't account for the effect this 'messing about' by the competitor at the control has affected the rest of the race.

Yes, there are problems whatever you do.
Sometimes you have to settle for the least bad option. You might not make the course perfectly fair - but you may end up making it less unfair.

And... it doesn't apply some 'pressure' on the sport to just get things right!! Voiding a course or two would focus attention on the problem!!

I don't think planners and controllers need any extra pressure and in my experience take the positioning of controls extremely seriously.

If anything the opposite is the case:
If officials give the impression to competitors that they would have to void the whole course as a result of a complaint then people will be reluctant to object as it will end up spoiling everybodies day.

Last year at Holmfirth, the first runner back lost several minutes due to a miss-placed control near the end of the course. This was reported at the finish and the control was moved, but no formal protest was made in order to avoid spoiling the entire event as most courses visited the control in question.

[pete.owens]

Many controls on the right linear feature are inevitably not absolutely accurately placed (misplaced controls in reentrants on steep hillsides are my pet aversion).

Which means that linear features should not really be used as control descriptions because they do not precisely define the position of a control site.

[RJ]

Yes pete.owens I agree with most of what you argue in your analysis. I think I would advocate that there should be far more formal protests by competitors. The protest can be upheld by the jury and you wouldn't lose your fee. But it would then be up to the jury to decide what the most appropriate outcome should be. The members of the jury can take the time to assess how many other people were affected and what the general feeling in the car park is.

A protest doesn't have to lead to voiding. But IMO the protest should be made so that the problem is addressed and assessed in the light of its effect on the event as a whole. Whether the event ends up being a fair competition or not!!

[Paul T]

It's frustrating that its difficult to find out why things like this happen, and that the discussion focuses on coping with the effects rather than reducing the frequency in the future.

There's no desire to lambast or embarrass anyone - I start from the view that officials are experienced, well intentioned, hard working busy people trying to do the right thing, just like you and I. Many of them are you and I. But stuff happens and its important for the sport that this experience is shared somehow. Updating the rules or imploring people to try harder will not change anything.
I'm looking forward to hanging some controls next weekend and know of many ways of getting it wrong and the checks needed to prevent them. It would be good to know if someone discovered another way last weekend!

[Really enjoyed the twin peak weekend by the way, including dismal day 2 run.]