Sheffield Urban Race - 3rd Sept

[andy]

There's an easy answer to all the control placement issues... make it absolutely unequivocal. If there is any doubt whatsoever then it should not have a control put on it.

Any doubt about what? Are you saying "never place a control where someone can gain an advantage by breaking the rules (as you understand them)?"

Yes and no. Some rules are obvious, some are not. Putting a control at the other side of a flower bed mapped as olive green is obviously ok, if you cross that flower bed it's oob and you'd get DQ'd.
If you put a control on a fence that is 'uncrossable' make sure there is no way someone can put their hand through the bars and punch the control. It's not a case of 'thems the rules, stick to them' it's a case of limiting the problem by making sure it can't happen. Look what happened at WOC, yes it was marked as OOB but a few people went through it. If they had put tapes up or made sure it was really obvious they wouldn't have had any problem. The mere fact we are discussing it in this detail means it was ambiguous and should not have been done, the planner or controller should have realised the potential issue and corrected accordingly.

[david_rosen]

The control was placed at the limit of a security wire, about 80cm from the fence. If it was easy to punch by reaching through, then someone had pulled it closer.

The box was (at most) 30cm from the railings when I was there. No stretching (or fishing rods) required. Perhaps the stake had fallen over and someone had re-erected it. It sounds probable that Sod's Law was operating. The planner/controller had anticipated the problem by placing the box out of reach, but someone re-erected it much closer to the railings.

[Mrs H]

But it's still the other side of an uncrossable feature - I repeat

Given the nature of many uncrossable features (in that it is possible to cross them) the only interpretation of the rules is that all things marked as uncrossable should be thought of as a ten foot high solid brick wall.

Is the chairman of the IOF rules commission seriously suggesting otherwise or is he being naughty?

Go on admit it - you're having a laugh aren't you?

[graeme]

It is not really question of clarifying the rules.

Bit of a daft comment there David. You seem to be saying that by the rules its fine to reach through an uncrossable feature to punch. I've never met anyone who thought that was the rule, that includes a whole slew of planners and controllers who misunderstand. So it surely needs to be clarified!

It is at least debateable whether putting one's arm across a barrier is also forbidden.

How can it be "debatable" but not "needing to be clarified"? Real people can get DQed in real races for this! Sort it out...

I can see arguments both ways, the only thing I think is essential is that you can tell from the map whether the control can be accessed from a given side.

Overall, it's just one more reason to avoid using uncrossable line features as control sites.

[ianandmonika]

Re David Rosen's point, uncrossable walls & hedges were all drawn at 0.4mm wide, lifted straight off 1:5000 ISSOM symbols on BOF website. Made significant effort to keep symbols to BOF symbol set and, given detail on map, we didn't consider it necessary to make symbols wider - which is fine until specific controls & courses get added to map. All easy with hindsight. Thought Pete G did a great job on his 1st (and last!!) ISSOM map and Simon in planning the courses between his overseas BOF training tours.

[IanD]

Thought Pete G did a great job on his 1st (and last!!) ISSOM map

Hope it won't be his last, it was a good map. It's very difficult to get an urban (or forest) map perfect first time, and this one came as close as any I've seen.

[seabird]

Hope the "last urban map" comment only reflects the mappers response to the huge number of hours required to draw an ISSOM map.

The map was great - I'd love to run on another PG map.

[LostAgain]

[quote="andy] The mere fact we are discussing it in this detail means it was ambiguous and should not have been done, the planner or controller should have realised the potential issue and corrected accordingly.[/quote]

I do not think there is any ambiguity. Just people have been caught cheating (obvious by the splits) and now wish to blow smoke into our faces to try and confuse what was otherwise a well understood rule.
"Uncrossable" is UNCROSSABLE.
"OOB" is Out of Bounds

Nobody is disputing that the fence which people put their hand through was clearly marked Uncrossable. No ambiguity here.

[andypat]

["Uncrossable" is UNCROSSABLE.
"OOB" is Out of Bounds

Nobody is disputing that the fence which people put their hand through was clearly marked Uncrossable. No ambiguity here.

It must be nice to be able to think in black and white like that all the time. If there's any ambiguity its in what is meant by uncrossable. Show us where it says in the rules you cant stick your hand through an uncrossable and youve won the arguement!

In any event the planner has cunningly trapped all those who punched through the fence by making the following leg also a much shorter prospect from that side of the fence. And I dont think the alleged ambiguity should necessarily stop the culprits from being DQ'd either. Up to them to prove their innocence I'd say.

[haloite]

To make control sites more obvious in Urban (and Sprint) why don't we
a) not use ambiguous descriptions
b) off-set the control circle to reflect the flag location
and finally
c) use a red (purple?) dot to show the EXACT location of the flag?
seems simple to me?

[Ant W]

I have to confess that I am baffled why anyone would genuinely believe that sticking your hand over/through an uncrossable fence wouldn't constitute a crossing of the feature. A bit academic for this event, though - the controller has made it pretty clear what his position is, and anyone who did it should own up.

[ER]

Prediction - by 2020 orienteering outside the forest will have developed in to parkour/free running O where jumping over uncrossable walls and dodging pedestrians and traffic at speed will be seen as positively necessary to success.

Either a sport has rules which are clear and enforced even when it means as in athletics the world's greatest sprinter is disqualified for false starting or it degenerates into a farcical game.This is the danger facing orienteering.

Reinstatement of disqualifications at the WOC sprint on grounds seemingly in disregard of the rules, the instances of breaches of rules in urban and sprint orienteering detailed in these pages and elsewhere and that the winner of a race may be the one who did not encounter an unmapped obstacle such as pedestrians or traffic when others did is undermining the integrity of the sport.

[awk]

Pretty much most of the time it's not the rule or the description or the map that is ambiguous, just people trying to push them to the limit to make excuses. There are exceptions - for instance one description I provided at Ripon, mea culpa - but others are not so (and I include the disputed control at Lincoln). Certainly, I agree with Lost Again and Ant W: uncrossable means just that, and that means any part of the body.

I do think there are some practices that could be adopted to ease the problem - Graeme's suggestion at on the whole not using the uncrossable line features as control sites is strikes me as a good one - but as ER said we also need to see the rules being enforced. Maybe we need numbers on a regular basis to ease identification, and the use of splits to aid checking?

The big thing though is that the information and learning needs wider dissemination. We have had some great races this year, and from each one I've not only derived much enjoyment but learned something about how to make urban orienteering even more enjoyable, and fairer, both at the event and through these pages. Those of us who read Nopesport are at a distinct advantage here - how many who don't are as au fait with the issues and possible aids to solution?

[buzz]

Either a sport has rules which are clear and enforced even when it means as in athletics the world's greatest sprinter is disqualified for false starting or it degenerates into a farcical game.This is the danger facing orienteering.

That seems a gross over-simplification. BOF has an overriding rule relating to the spirit of fairness and good fellowship which governs the interpretion and application of all the other rules - this isn't black and white, but is much more important in mitigating against the type of farcical game that you envisage.

At sheffield red and white tapes were inadvertantly used to both to encourage and discourage crossing of an uncrossable feature - how is the competitor supposed to interpret the rules in this situation?

Reinstatement of disqualifications at the WOC sprint on grounds seemingly in disregard of the rules, the instances of breaches of rules in urban and sprint orienteering detailed in these pages and elsewhere and that the winner of a race may be the one who did not encounter an unmapped obstacle such as pedestrians or traffic when others did is undermining the integrity of the sport.

In my opinion the WOC sprint is an excellent example where supposedly black and white rules needed common sense interpretation to maintain the spirit of fairness. In one incident many 10's of runners were inadvertently caught out by an unclear map detail and in the other runners were simply stepping onto grass in order to avoid pedestrians. In neither was there any intent to break the rules or significant advantage gained.

[Garnon]

All results, analysis and comments are now up on the SYO site.

They've also been uploaded to the Nopesport Urban League and British Orienteering Ranking pages.