Twin Peaks Day 1 misplaced control

[Gnitworp]

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.

Absolutely not. Such sites just need more checks by pacing/bearings etc from clearly identifiable points to get any errors within acceptable tolerances.

[NeilC]

Let's not make generalized statements. A control on a straight earthwall may be perfectly reasonable if there happens to be a thicket or something else obvious 20-30m away. That thicket effectively highlights the position of the control on the earthwall. And before anyone comments there may be prefectly good reasons for using the earthwall rather than the thicket - just 30m can significantly change the nature of a leg.

[Gnitworp]

Even without the nearby thicket you can always 'aim off' to good effect if the marker's accurately sited.

[EddieH]

How can those that think it unacceptable to drop 1 or 2 legs from a course as a matter of principle accept that when a day of the JK is voided the trophy is given on the remaining day?

Surely some people expect to come through in day 2 (or vice versa) particularly for the Elite who end up with either a short or a long race.

I can't see any difference but I also think few people would prefer to void the championship altogether - I have never heard ANYONE advocate this before.

[LostAgain]

How can those that think it unacceptable to drop 1 or 2 legs from a course as a matter of principle accept that when a day of the JK is voided the trophy is given on the remaining day?

Eddie I think you stretch the point too far. Although highly undesirable to void a day of the JK or taking at step further any multi-day event where it is cummulative, I do think it reasonable to void a day and still run the competition on the remaining day.

I would advocate that if a course had a leg(s) removed that the modified course not necessarily be used for determining overall winners when there is an untainted course still to be run or been run.

I agree with leg removal and rebasing times for low key events, the old colour coded. Even the badge events seems reasonable, I'm less convinced about the allocation of ranking points/trophies.

[EddieH]

The logical result of that Lostagain as I see it is that Bleathwaite (at least the courses that had this particular reentrant) should be scrapped from the UK Masters Cup.

Personally I don't think so.

[distracted]

I'd tend to agree with Paul T and ask why the control was misplaced, and what can be done to avoid this in the future.

From my limited experience and from discussion on this board previously, different planners/controllers have different ways of working. Some make additional checks which may seem redundant to others, but ultimately must reduce the chances of things going wrong.

In this case, the comments from the officials suggest that the map was not perfect in this area and, in hindsight, the site shouldn't have been used. In similar circumstances in the past, I've spoken to the controller and it has turned out the direction which that course approached that control was not the one they have checked it from, from which the map and site seemed OK. I understand that at the bigger events where many different courses use the same control, checking all routes into that control simply isn't practical.

I think this example demonstrates that the way volunteers are time-limited can have an effect on the quality of an event, but there perhaps are certain things that planners/controllers should bear in mind when out in the field to pick up on anomalies and minimise errors. It also shows the most difficult job of the lot is that of the mapper - and how a good map that the officials can put their trust in makes all our lives so much easier!

[LostAgain]

Yes Eddie, the case could be argued for the none allocation of Masters Points.

I am not personally advocating this, but would have sympathy for someone who did.

It is a difficult and somewhat thorny issue. I can live with it either way, as I can with the awarding of ranking points. My opinion is not to award points.

[andypat]

I wasnt on teh affected course, but if I was- voided legs is definitely my preference. If I'd travelled all that way for a voided course, no ranking or masters cup points I'd be thoroughly hacked off! I'd probably even be asking for my money back!!

[RJ]

...... I'd probably even be asking for my money back!!......

Now there's a sensible solution. If your course has a misplaced control that the jury has validated then everyone affected can apply for their money back.... or a free entry to the next event staged by that club!

[Gross]

Taking splits out is not a good approach in a competition that is meant to mean something.... for various reasons already stated. It's ok in a bog standard punter race.

As a controller I would void the course ....

So was Twin Peaks important or just a punter race?

[awk]

So was Twin Peaks important or just a punter race?

Important for whom? Implication seems that those 'punters' aren't important?

[andypat]

Interestingly the BOF rules suggest that some are more important than others.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/events_appendix_i.pdf

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 since the winners of the race will be determined by who completed the designated race in the quickest time. How many runners should be considered the top runners depends on the nature of the event and the total number of competitors in that race. It could vary from one to six.

So if you are not in the top 6 forget it........