Controllers conundrum - BOC incident

[Becks]

Kitch: spot on.

[AndyC]

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.

Apart from the suggestion of warning competitors - I'd be inclined to put a sign on the gate something like "orienteers passing through this gate will be disqualified" so there is no doubt

Edit Sign should be on the gate post in case it is onscured when open - Thanks Marcopolo

[JEP]

Agree with Kitch. At World Champs in Denmark Matt Speake and one or two others were disqualified for crossing a 2 ft high fence which was marked as "not to be crossed" with a purple line but could easily be hurdled. It was manned though and numbers noted - but then it was WOC.

Brits were happy as an Aussie was also disqualified which gave GG (I think) a top 10 place.

[gg]

As I recall it was a horse race style fence that you could go under as well, and the Aussie actually was disqualified in the qualification as well, but got into the final by protesting about a technicality (2 controls 29m apart not the required 30m i think). I seem to remember people found it quite funny that he managed to get himself disqualified in the final too!

[andypat]

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...

Eddie - OK forget I mentioned the above event - CLEARLY its a crime to cite an example to make a point!

I think your stance against the competitor in these situations is simply too inflexible. I can think of at least 4 examples in recent events where competitors have inadvertently strayed into or across a not to be crossed feature (building/olive green/not to be crossed hedge) where I would have said there were mitigating circumstances. But I wont cite them in case you think I am hounding the JK sprint/Edinburgh Urban event/or indeed myself for the Erskine urban event!

[roadrunner]

Going back to the controversial #9, suppose that there had been another, longer and slower but safe, route to control No. 1: what would you do then? To my mind this would be a case for ignoring the first leg and starting the race from the first control.

[Adventure Racer]

To my mind this would be a case for ignoring the first leg and starting the race from the first control.

Even if the overall winning margin over second place was less than the amount the second place runner lost on the first leg (with none of the last 6 starters making the top 3 even with the first leg removed)?

[AndyC]

On #11 -we remember when that relates to and the response of those who got the medals as a result and compliment all the competitors for doing the right thing BUT has anyone ever been disqualified under rule 26.3?

[andypat]

I cant recall it ever happening but I suppose its helpful to have the rule to allow an eent organiser to take action to prevent an unpalatable result should it occur?

[Jon X]

Norway women lost their WOC silver medals in 1993 under rule 26.3 (or whatever the equivalent rule was then). One of their runners took a cold cure without checking it with the team doctor and then failed a post-race test. Pretty sure that it was generally accepted to be an honest mistake rather than an attempt to cheat.

[AndyC]

In this instance, from the context, I think rule 26.3 roughly equates to BOF rule 7.2.1 "It is the duty of competitors to give help to an injured competitor even if this means
abandoning their run."