Controllers conundrum - BOC incident

[IanD]

I think we are too reluctant to void legs rather than void courses, but in this case I agree with both not voiding the course and not voiding legs. Reasons being, as indicated by previous posters, that the very top runners were not affected by the problem but would be affected by voiding legs.

However, I would like to suggest that those who were affected (but did not abandon their runs) could have their times adjusted, this adjustment to affect their (and others) race positions, ranking points, etc. This could be done by discarding their actual time for the affected legs, which would include searching for the control, and substituting estimated times for the legs.

The formula for calculating a replacement time for a leg could be

winners time for the leg x competitor's total time for all other legs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
winners time for all other legs on the course

This would enable those who were affected to appear in a fair place in the results. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, and in particular I would only advocate doing this for 'also-rans', I wouldn't want to see medal positions calculated on such a basis.

[Matt F]

Is there/should there be an option to void the course as a WRE but let it stand as a British Championship?

Can someone who is "in the know" say whether this is an option. Having thought about this, given that WRE points are calculated for everyone, that this might have been a better outcome.

I agree if this option is available it should be implemented, the same applies for the UK cup status.

Having considered the IOF rules posted I can see how the actions taken could be in agreement. I think the greatest problem in this instance was that the athletes involved were not kept informed of what was happening on the day. To avoid leaving me and others severely pissed off on the day the officials should have called us in and explained the situation and the action they were taking (with the aid of the IOF/BOF rules). Keeping us informed would have prevented that impossible situation we were put in as to whether or not to protest, that's what I was so annoyed about.

It's worth noting that I wouldn't want to take anything away from Doug's performance, he's a more than worthy winner (the incident wouldn't have affected his result) and I would hate to have seen the course voided but I don't think you could have argued with the officials interpretation of the rules if it had have been voided.

N.B. I haven't seen the email yet, but my point still stands.

[Becks]

If you void the WRE and take away points from our top runners, you could affect their starts at World Cups etc. Not sure this is any better solution.

[Homer]

There was a very good example of why leg times either side of a problem control cannot be removed at the Irish Middle Distance Champs the other week.
I don't want to go into the detail, but the results were seriously affected by groups forming after searching for an unfair control.
Results must stand or the whole course be voided.

[Matt F]

Realistically they would not have troubled the top 6, and unlikely even a top 10.

Merely removing Chris' time loss at 6 puts him 11th.

[King Penguin]

I retract my aside (which was immaterial anyway) about the controller being the same. I was getting my days confused.
I agree with Ian's suggestion of a formula for recalculating the missing legs; in fact I suggested something remarkably similar after my equivalent issue at the JK several years ago.

[Spookster]

Having considered the IOF rules posted I can see how the actions taken could be in agreement. I think the greatest problem in this instance was that the athletes involved were not kept informed of what was happening on the day. To avoid leaving me and others severely pissed off on the day the officials should have called us in and explained the situation and the action they were taking (with the aid of the IOF/BOF rules). Keeping us informed would have prevented that impossible situation we were put in as to whether or not to protest, that's what I was so annoyed about.

Although the control went missing at around 1320, and was back in place by 1340, it was not until much later that we knew who had actually been affected. M21E split times were checked for a while as each finished, so that we could establish the number affected. Once we had enough finishers who had not been affected (people finishing at about 1530) we knew the "significance" of the issue. At about that time we were also in the process of responding to a report of an injured competitor requiring medical assistance in the forest, so the elite missing control was for a time not our major concern. By 1600 we had re-instated the DSQ M21E runners, and I made an announcement on the PA of the action we had decided to take. We also ensured the results were posted on the boards well before the prize-giving, in order to allow for any concerns to be raised. Finally, at about the time I could have been consulting with affected M21E's to better explain the situation, I was dealing with a complaint regarding the results of another class.

I'm sorry that you felt you were put in an impossible situation.

[DaveK]

And how much exactly were you being paid for all of this?
Great event and excellent weekend overall I thought. Thanks to all involved.

[Adventure Racer]

If you void the WRE and take away points from our top runners, you could affect their starts at World Cups etc. Not sure this is any better solution.

Indeed - who would actually benefit from no WRE points?

[pete.owens]

There was a very good example of why leg times either side of a problem control cannot be removed at the Irish Middle Distance Champs the other week.
I don't want to go into the detail, but the results were seriously affected by groups forming after searching for an unfair control.
Results must stand or the whole course be voided.

(my emphasis)

No, that was an example of why removing the legs would not have helped at that particular race - not an argument against removing legs ever under any circumstances whatsoever. Each case needs to be considered individually on its merits and there are some cases where taking out a leg can be the least bad option.

[Matt F]

If you void the WRE and take away points from our top runners, you could affect their starts at World Cups etc. Not sure this is any better solution.

Indeed - who would actually benefit from no WRE points?

It's not about who would benefit no points. 16% of competitors were affected by an incident which has changed the results, the race was therefore unfair. Should rankings be allocated to a results list where the results would have been different had it been fair? That goes for the UK cup too.

My interpretation from the posts/rules are that the results stand because:
1. The incident didn't affect the top 6.
2. The incident was out of the hands of the officials, no-one was at fault.
3. 16% is not a large enough proportion of affected runners.
4. The aim of the competition is to declare a worthy winner.

There are many positives from allowing the result to stand. I am personally very happy that we have a British champion and the main contenders were unaffected.

Martin - I take your points and understand it must have been very difficult, my point was really supposed to be a learning point for future officials but it sounds as though you would have done this had it been possible.

[Adventure Racer]

If you void the WRE and take away points from our top runners, you could affect their starts at World Cups etc. Not sure this is any better solution.

Indeed - who would actually benefit from no WRE points?

It's not about who would benefit no points. 16% of competitors were affected by an incident which has changed the results, the race was therefore unfair. Should rankings be allocated to a results list where the results would have been different had it been fair?

Did it change significantly the WRE points of those who weren't affected? Given voiding the race makes no difference to the number of WRE points you got, what exactly are you achieving by not allowing other people (who's ranking points weren't unfair) to get any?

[ic]

I agree with Ian's suggestion of a formula for recalculating the missing legs; in fact I suggested something remarkably similar after my equivalent issue at the JK several years ago.

I think the use of a calculated time for voided legs is a good idea, that hopefully will achieve the acceptance it deserves. in order to get a more realistic estimate of calculated times, though, it could be an idea to start a nationwide database of leg times classified by terrain type, features, height climb etc. to gain a better perspective on how each individual runner might have responded to the particular voided leg in question. For example, some runners may be consistently above average on say steeply uphill legs in heavy undergrowth to find reentrants, or path junctions say. Such a database would hopefully clarify that information. Then a simple calculation using this data, along with ranking position, and a normaliser to give a shorter leg time if the competitors had chosen late starts, should give quite a realistic time that could be used.

Hope this helps.

[King Penguin]

ic -you may now remove tongue from cheek.

I believe we all acknowledge that what we are suggesting is not a perfect solution, but that in some circumstances it would provide another possible solution which would be the least bad outcome and better than the options currently available. Sadly we do not have a Tardis at our disposal so we cannot go back in time to replace the control before it goes missing and avoid the problem altogether.

[Adventure Racer]

I think the use of a calculated time for voided legs is a good idea, that hopefully will achieve the acceptance it deserves. in order to get a more realistic estimate of calculated times, though, it could be an idea to start a nationwide database of leg times classified by terrain type, features, height climb etc. to gain a better perspective on how each individual runner might have responded to the particular voided leg in question. For example, some runners may be consistently above average on say steeply uphill legs in heavy undergrowth to find reentrants, or path junctions say. Such a database would hopefully clarify that information. Then a simple calculation using this data, along with ranking position, and a normaliser to give a shorter leg time if the competitors had chosen late starts, should give quite a realistic time that could be used.

If you have that data, you could even go further and calculate the complete race time for those people who can't make an event they've entered due to illness or injury, so allowing them to still get placings and ranking points.