Controllers conundrum - BOC incident

[Adventure Racer]

I'm afraid I think all the comments that its OK not to void a course / take remdial action on certain legs as the people perceived to be the best before the start of the race were not affected to be arrogant nonsense. There are many cases in sport where someone was "come from nowhere" to be successful, often pressaging a very successful future career.

But the top of the result list is clearly far more important, as that's the bit which is publicised and which people other than those participating will actually be interested in. For positions further down the results, does it really matter if the official results suggest you were 25th, when you know that you should have really been 24th? The only person who cares is you, and you know what the result would have been. Surely it's better not to change the positions of those who finished 2nd and 3rd in order to "fix" such issues? I say that as somebody who is very much punter material (I suspect most other people on this thread have been nearer the top of an important orienteering competition than me).

As for "coming from nowhere" - what has that got to do with finishing 25th or 24th? Are you seriously suggesting that people who took longer on the rest of the course excluding the affected leg than the winner did for the whole course might have been up there otherwise. Your football analogy is almost completely irrelevant.

[Scott]

Remember the incident involved was something the organisor could have done nothing about, and could have happened at pretty much any event, not matter how well organised.

In an ideal world you would have the manpower available to patrol the more "vulnerable" controls. Being in a biker area, being only visited by one course and not being near any other controls all combined to make #66 vulnerable; I expect the same would apply to some of the controls on the western slope.

I want to make it clear that I intend no criticism of the organisers: in reality it's going to be extremely difficult to find anyone prepared to give up their BOC run to sit and stare at a control for six hours, and there are plenty of higher priority jobs that it was probably already a struggle to find volunteers for.

[andypat]

Nah - you are being harsh on Matt here.

Surely if you have rules - even if you disagree with them (which I do) then you use them.

From the IOF info provided earlier in the discussion:

A problem that adversely affected 10% or more of the field could be taken as an indication that the race may no longer be fair.

As Matt has pointed out the issue affected 16% of the field.

Its not about advantages or disadvantages of WRE status. Sounds like politics takes precedence over fairness.

[andypat]

Remember the incident involved was something the organisor could have done nothing about, and could have happened at pretty much any event, not matter how well organised.

In an ideal world you would have the manpower available to patrol the more "vulnerable" controls. Being in a biker area, being only visited by one course and not being near any other controls all combined to make #66 vulnerable; I expect the same would apply to some of the controls on the western slope.

I want to make it clear that I intend no criticism of the organisers: in reality it's going to be extremely difficult to find anyone prepared to give up their BOC run to sit and stare at a control for six hours, and there are plenty of higher priority jobs that it was probably already a struggle to find volunteers for.

Scott - youve found a nice way of saying what I was thinking. Having nearly been knocked down by a group of mountain bikers doing around 30+mph, (and given the above issue) it had occurred to me whether this was appropriate raw material for a WRE in the first place?

[Becks]

Has anyone stopped to think how this "interesting discussion" might be affecting the planners and controllers who are sitting at home exhausted, having worked themselves into the ground to put this weekend on, watching the criticism of their decisions get more and more bizarre?

If anyone had a problem, there's a system to be followed. It wasn't followed on the day, and this debate is not going to change the result. So let's put this to rest and let those knackered volunteers bask in what looks like an excellent weekend. Scott, I volunteer you for control guarding duty at the next BOC. You never know what those pesky mountain bikers might get up to.

[LostAgain]

Has anyone stopped to think how this "interesting discussion" might be affecting the planners and controllers who are sitting at home exhausted, having worked themselves into the ground to put this weekend on, watching the criticism of their decisions get more and more bizarre?

I had not noticed any criticism of the Planners or Controllers. The Organiser (Spookster) has clarified Matt F's concern regarding the process on the day and how it was handled.

The thread is a genuine discussion. The Results stand and will not be changed as far as I understand.

[NeilC]

The thread is a genuine discussion. The Results stand and will not be changed as far as I understand.

Nor will the rules be changed. But that shouldn't prevent further discussion either.

[King Penguin]

For the avoidance of doubt, the weekend was absolutely fantastic and in none of my posts was any criticism intended of any of the officials who worked long and hard so the rest of us could enjoy the events.
Neither is it intended to diminish the performances of the worthy winners.
Rather, it is a discussion of what the rules are and how they might possibly perhaps be modified to improve matters in the future.
Well done and heartfelt thanks to all those involved in putting on the events.

[andypat]

Has anyone stopped to think how this "interesting discussion" might be affecting the planners and controllers who are sitting at home exhausted, having worked themselves into the ground to put this weekend on, watching the criticism of their decisions get more and more bizarre?

If anyone had a problem, there's a system to be followed. It wasn't followed on the day, and this debate is not going to change the result. So let's put this to rest and let those knackered volunteers bask in what looks like an excellent weekend. Scott, I volunteer you for control guarding duty at the next BOC. You never know what those pesky mountain bikers might get up to.

Becks - most of us on here weren't involved in the issue and are debating a principle as much as anything. If you check the other thread you'll see a number of positive comments about the weekend. This thread is about a specific issue and by the sounds of it a divisive one.

Echo KPs thoughts also.

I'm interested in your comment that the system wasn't followed on the day. Can you clarify for us what the system actually is?

[Becks]

I'm sure someone like Scott can tell you the exact procedure, I am not a rules guru, but it's what was talked about in the other thread with appeals and official protests and stuff. There's a time limit which I think is always on the day (as a common use of a protest is a misplaced control, and you want it still to be in the forest when the decision is made), and once that's gone, you're left with ranting on Nopesport as your only option.

[Matt F]

you're left with ranting on Nopesport as your only option

It is quite clear why a protest was not made. No-one is ranting. You made a couple of relevant posts, stop making yourself look bad now.

[Spookster]

Has anyone stopped to think how this "interesting discussion" might be affecting the planners and controllers who are sitting at home exhausted, having worked themselves into the ground to put this weekend on, watching the criticism of their decisions get more and more bizarre?

I'm fairly sure Tony isn't a Nopesport reader. Jenny is, but she's not getting sucked in, and I'm not bothered about criticism, as long as its constructive.

As Scott correctly pointed out, we could have manned the controls. However, we already needed around 120 volunteers to run the event as it was, and this took all of SYO's active members, and quite a few of their friends and family members as well. To man an extra 40 or so controls for 5 hours was beyond our resources. We could have tried to identify especially vulnerable controls, but then I'd have guessed the ones in the south of Wharncliffe near the biking area were the most likely to get vandalised (no disrespect to bikers, but that's where we've had issue before).

Mrs Spookster did go and man control 66 after it had been replaced, to make sure we didn't lose it again while the last few starters went through.

I think the rules as they are (IOF and BOF) work. In sport luck plays a part, and bad luck happens. It isn't always fair, but no rule can make right something that is just bad luck.

Now then, nobody has answered Scott's earlier question...

I wasn't familiar with the document NeilC quotes above, which has come from the IOF Rules Commission, but it certainly makes for interesting reading. How many of the hypothetical examples at the end do you agree with?

[andypat]

Well the one that stands out is number 9 which seems to fly in the face of all the rest to me. I think voiding a race is a wholly unsatisfactory outcome for any of them, unless there is a rerun - perhaps this should be factored in for WOC type events? But I cant see how 9 can stand as a fair race - bizarre!

And by the way - good job spookster of coming on here and explaining things.

[LostAgain]

I agree #9 seems, in my opinion, to be the only anomaly. Would have thought re-running the race would have been the option.

The others seemed logical to me.

[distracted]

I can identify #11 being the 2009 relay but can anyone shed any light on the reality or otherwise of the rest of them?

And I can't see why the decision from #5 is different from #4, when in both cases the map is incorrect, unless that is the only possible route choice. Several of the others should never happen - especially at a World Championship level. #7 the organising team should hang their head in shame, the organiser should have been aware that #8 was a possibility and mitigated, same true of #9 unless the downpour was truly unprecendented.