Controllers conundrum - BOC incident

[Adventure Racer]

And I can't see why the decision from #5 is different from #4

The obvious difference being that in the case of 4, some competitors have gained an advantage due to breaking the rules, but can't reasonably be disqualified because the map was incorrect. Being disadvantaged due to an incorrect map is a subtly different issue (I think the numbers involved also has an influence - were it not for so many being affected, personally I'd be tempted to just disqualify those in case 4).

the organiser should have been aware that #8 was a possibility and mitigated

Lots of things are a possibility - the question is which ones are a reasonable probability. Insufficient information to judge whether that was the case here - otherwise we come back to having to individually police all controls in the forest to ensure they're not disturbed.

[andypat]

I've experienced number 9 in Knoydart camping on the far side of a dry stream bed by Ladhar Bhein only to wake up a few hours later to the sounds of heavy rain and boulders tumbling down the stream which was 3ft deep - within a couple of hours it was a trickle again!

[Scott]

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.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. You can mitigate against most things if you have infinite volunteers, but in reality you have to prioritise, and control-guarding can easily take up a huge amount on-the-day manpower to mitigate against what is (on most areas) a relatively small risk.

For what it's worth, I've been involved as planner or organiser in four events (one urban, three in "public" forests) where we felt that the controls needed guarding against being moved by bikers/dog-walkers/assorted scallywags:

- one event where we went totally OTT and guarded pretty much every control, and in the process left the assembly area team drastically under-manned - in hindsight that was a serious mistake in prioritisation

- two events where we had roving patrols of the "vulnerable" controls - and at one of those events one of the controls that we hadn't been worried about then got moved

- one event (much more low-key than the other two) where we couldn't spare anybody to guard controls and I spent most of the event worrying, but we got away with it, although several of the "smiley faces" from the white/yellow courses got nicked

I'm not sure what the lesson from all that is. Getting a control moved when we were busily guarding other, apparently more vulnerable controls was particularly annoying, but even in hindsight I'm not sure I would have done things differently at that event.

[blairtrewin]

We could have some fun trying to identify the examples in the IOF document - some of them are exact examples (#13 - WMOC 2009), some of them are fairly slight modifications of things which actually happened (#2 - a World Cup race in France a few years ago, but due to high winds rather than lightning).

Others seem to be loosely based on real examples. #9 happened, more or less, in a World Cup race in Switzerland in 1996 but as it was a mass-start race it was the back, rather than front, end of the field which was affected (the stream was between the last control and the finish). #10 is, I think, based on a World Cup race in New Zealand in 1994, although there only one runner (yours truly) was affected seriously enough to be unable to finish the course. (I didn't protest as I would have been well down the field and didn't want a no-race, so it's unclear how a jury would have ruled had one been required). Doesn't #8 happen in Venice every year?

#4 happened in a race I controlled a few years back. We found out about it just before the first start and sent an official out to stand in the gap.

[mike g]

4 is something I've just had to think about. Planning and updating the map for a park race, I've been to the area twice and found a gate open once and locked once. I reckon it's more likely than not to be locked during the race so I've mapped it as part of a 'forbidden to cross' fence, but I can't be certain it'll be locked. If it turns out to be open I would not agree with the answer given that 'the map is incorrect'; I would say that anyone going through the gate has disobeyed the map and should be disqualified.

[andypat]

I'd take a different view from Mike. If theres a gate which is open on the day but isnt mapped then how can the map NOT be wrong. There is an OCAD symbol for a gate after all. This happened at the Scottish sprints and depending on what route you took some were able to take advantage of this. I dont think anyone was DQ'd and the course wasnt voided (which would have been harsh on the rest of us IMO as it was an inadvertent error on behalf of the planner/controller).

If you turn this on its head - would it have been OK for GG to climb the fence in the WOC at the point where the non-existent gap was mapped?

I'd suggest that Mike has correctly identifed a risk for his event and needs to ensure that it is managed. Unless you can find out for sure one way or the other my solution would be:

1. Plan to completely avoid this route
2. Map as a gate but overprint with a purple line and marshall it.

If you simply map as a uncrossable fence and its open on the day then the error is yours and you are setting your controller up for a problem.

[EddieH]

More than a bit harsh Andypat. I think it's rubbish to call an unexpectedly open gate an ERROR

In urban O this can always happen. If the open gate happens to be under a circle or a line between controls, you cannot blame a competitor for assuming that it i hidden by the line.

Otherwise if you go through such a gap you should be disqualified or disqualify yourself.
I fail to see how you consider being lazy about reading the map as not an error, but an unforseen external factor as an organiser's error.

I know you put a lot of effort into putting on events - but would you not feel aggrieved if you get hounded for incompetence for such a thing? - Should such a thing happen at Lossiemouth I would.

[andypat]

Eddie - I have read your post twice but cant seem to get your point. I am sure this is my error rather than yours!

You seem to be saying that I am hounding someone for incompetence??

I dont think saying an inadvertent error occurred is hounding. But I dont think you can say it wasnt preventable either. I thought I was pretty much saying I agreed with the way it was handled? Remember this was not Urban O - it was the Scottish Sprint Championships. At the Scottish Sprint as I understand it the gate into the school was supposed to be locked but wasnt. This wasnt noted on the day hence an inadvertent error but an error nonetheless. My comment at the end of my post was in relation to Mike's situation where he has identified a gate which may or may not be open. This is a totally different situation. He has done well to identify the risk, but the success or otherwise of the event may depend on how he manages this risk.

[King Penguin]

In urban O this can always happen. If the open gate happens to be under a circle or a line between controls, you cannot blame a competitor for assuming that it i hidden by the line.

As happened at Oxford a few years back (rear of St. Anne's College).
The red line exactly covered where the "gap" (open gate at least part of the time) was.
There was much debate on here at the time. As I recall had the red line not been there, or been broken, dsq would have been perfectly reasonable, but not as it was printed.

If you don't want the gate to be used I think either :
(a) the uncrossable fence symbol should be used along the full length (gate not mapped) and the red line between controls bent around it
(b) map the gate, purple overprint the gate and either bend the red lines or leave a decent gap in them where they cross the fence

[LostAgain]

If there is a gate in a fence, but it is expected to be locked (unusable) should it be mapped as a "gate" or should the fence be continuous?

AND if it is not to be crossed, marked by the thick black line, does it matter?

[Scott]

As happened at Oxford a few years back (rear of St. Anne's College).

Yes, I was just about to post about that - I was the organiser. The gate was normally locked, but the problem was students who had keys would occasionally helpfully hold it open for runners. Neither having the gate permanently open nor keeping it locked for the duration of the race would have been options. In hindsight we should have marshalled it to stop runners going through, but we didn't anticipate the problem.

In the end we let the results stand (with many apologies) - it was difficult to tell with certainty from the splits which competitors had taken advantage, and I think I'm right in saying that the BOF rules at that time didn't give the option of removing the leg.

2. Map as a gate but overprint with a purple line and marshall it.

I'm not sure how legible that would be. I think as a competitor if I see a gate symbol I would normally assume that I could get through it; and I'm not convinced the little bit of purple underneath would stand out enough.

[EddieH]

I don't agree with you Andypat that it is excusable to go through an open gate in a clearly mapped uncrossable wall or fence - that is CLEARLY a competitor error and should result in disqualification.

As I understand the Scottish Sprint situation, at some time during the competition someone with a key unusualy opened a gate for a short period of time during the competition. This is NOT an error on behalf of the organiser/ planner etc. - it is an unforseeable.

My memory says that the Scottish Sprint may well have been a case where a line crossed the fence near to the gate thus causing reasonable doubt in the competitors' minds although in this I may be mistaken.

Regarding KP's idea of bending lines, this is not normal practice on ISSOM maps.

On a similar vein I noticed that vandals had put holes in an uncrossable fence in Forres the other week. Competitors were reminded at the start that such fences are FORBIDDEN to be crossed, and told that if they spotted a vandal hole in the fence that it would be cheating to go through said hole.

[Scott]

Going back to the IOF document, I'd agree with the earlier sentiments on here that #9 does seem a bit odd. Would athletes really be happy accepting medals knowing that the six fastest runners in the qualifiers had been prevented from taking part? It seems somehow different to #11 (injury during a relay), although I'm not sure I could put my finger on why.

[Becks]

Sprint racing has a few quite artificial constructs, and in this case I'm with Eddie, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to adopt. If something is marked as uncrossable, you don't cross it. If you were in the forest and came across an unmarked new bike track, you'd probably ignore it and just put it down to use of the forest changing the map. If a summer had been particularly dry and the river marked as uncrossable on your sprint map was actually crossable, you still wouldn't cross it. A gate randomly opening that has always previously been closed is the same thing. Red lines can be a problem yes, and obscuring detail is always difficult in sprint. But you just have to play by the rules. (End note: There is certainly opportunity for lack of clarity, see Filey thread, but a gate in a fence is easier than that).

[Kitch]

I couldn't be arsed to read 5 pages of rambling bumf to discover how this thread transformed from missing controls at BOC to a debate on uncrossables and gates but on the current subject.....

The terminology doesn't help.

We say Uncrossable
In some cases we actually mean - Not to be Crossed.

In forest situations some "uncrossable" features can actually be negotiated, crags, rivers during drought for example.
But even in these cases should competitors understand that these features are not to be crossed since they represent a danger? And in the interests of fairness should no-one attemt to cross them ?

In sprint races lots of "uncrossables" are perfectly crossable but are actually "not to be crossed" in order that artificial complications can be introduced to route choices.

So
If we mean No one should cross this feature and they must navigate around it then we should say "Not to be crossed"

If we mean difficult or dangerous to cross but by all means have a go if you want to risk it then we should say "Uncrossable" or maybe "Difficult to cross". After all thats is what that vegetation screens tell us.