I was there.
I did read the leg correctly, after stopping still for a while failing to see any other options.
However, the notion that DSQ'ing fast splits (say anything under 2-and-a-half minutes - my split was 3:12) achieves any sort of fairness is simplistic and flawed. There were plenty of people who went the wrong way, hunted round for ways through and eventually found the gate, who will have splits not fast enough to be spottable, but who nonetheless should be DSQ'd. eg. there were two women who took a small amount of time off me on that leg (I saw them before and after it), but who both went through the gate. How can the full set of transgressors possibly be identified ?
In this case, it seems to me that the least worst option is to take the leg out. Not because it makes everything totally fair, but because it gets closer to fairness than anything else.
My recommendation to planners of urban races would be to be very wary of setting up legs like this. If there are possible traps for which DSQ is a conceivable outcome, then either change the leg so it isn't, or organise 100% policing such that ALL transgressors WILL be DSQ'd.
Here you have an excellent tour of good bits of what on the face of it wasn't a particularly exciting map, with decent, challenging legs almost everywhere. Yet the event will be most remembered for this one issue. Similar to the Lincoln event, and the Guildford event, both of which had great entertainment overshadowed by a planning issue. Best to have your event remembered for right reasons.
You can DSQ some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time ...
Penrith Urban
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Penrith Urban
from the controller, Steve Buckley:
Penrith Urban League Event. The Controller and Organiser have decided to reinstate all competitors on A, B, C & D courses.
All competitors on A, B & C courses with split times of less than 2 minutes or so will be disqualified.
Results should be available on Monday with further information on the BL website
Penrith Urban League Event. The Controller and Organiser have decided to reinstate all competitors on A, B, C & D courses.
All competitors on A, B & C courses with split times of less than 2 minutes or so will be disqualified.
Results should be available on Monday with further information on the BL website
- usuallylast
- red
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:17 pm
- Location: North Cumbria
Re: Penrith Urban
Tough decision - well done for having the balls to take it.
Mind you there'll be a few legal times close to 2min as I took 2:51 and I'm not exactly Usain Bolt!
Mind you there'll be a few legal times close to 2min as I took 2:51 and I'm not exactly Usain Bolt!
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
Absolutely Sloop, there were definitely people who under the controllers/organisers decision won't be DSQ but who should be as they took time hunting around.
I share the opinion that for an Urban event the planner (and controller) set themselves up for this to become an issue.
I think people cross these 'uncrossable' boundarys not because they wish to cheat but because they do not perceive to be doing any 'damage'...and they clearly aren't, simply passing through an open gate. Compare this to crossing clearly marked OOB out in the great outdoors where 99.9% of competitors realise they may be doing some damage (though not know what it is) and thus don't do it.
I maintain a simple sign entering the start box along the following lines would help (along with more thoughtful planning): "Uncrossable boundarys shall not be crossed even if they appear crossable on the ground - disqualification will result".
Similar issues have been a feature of some Urban events - Edinburgh, Lincoln, Guildford are all quoted, which seems to undermine the discipline.
I share the opinion that for an Urban event the planner (and controller) set themselves up for this to become an issue.
I think people cross these 'uncrossable' boundarys not because they wish to cheat but because they do not perceive to be doing any 'damage'...and they clearly aren't, simply passing through an open gate. Compare this to crossing clearly marked OOB out in the great outdoors where 99.9% of competitors realise they may be doing some damage (though not know what it is) and thus don't do it.
I maintain a simple sign entering the start box along the following lines would help (along with more thoughtful planning): "Uncrossable boundarys shall not be crossed even if they appear crossable on the ground - disqualification will result".
Similar issues have been a feature of some Urban events - Edinburgh, Lincoln, Guildford are all quoted, which seems to undermine the discipline.
- The Cumbrian
- white
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:46 pm
- Location: Up North
Re: Penrith Urban
To be fair to the Organising team they did make it very clear in the final details.....
• Note that thick black lines on the map denote uncrossable barriers which can be a either a wall or section of fence. Do not cross these even if they look crossable.
In view of the fact that a decision (a sensible one) has been made it is now time to put forward a solution for future events. Often these transgressions are noticed by competitors after they finish. For those people who 'own up' a time penalty would be appropriate..... longest split for the leg +10%. Deliberate breaking of the rule should result in disqualification. Many fences/walls that are shown as uncrossable can in fact be crossed if you are agile enough..... if caught then they should be disqualified. With time those competitors who are prepared to cheat will be reduced. It happens on the open fell as well, with competitors crossing walls and fences NOT at marked crossing points!
Most people who trangress in this way are not doing it deliberately, and usually own up to it to their fellow racers and club members in a discussion after the race. It is a small step to ask them to report it to the organising team and take the penalty.
• Note that thick black lines on the map denote uncrossable barriers which can be a either a wall or section of fence. Do not cross these even if they look crossable.
In view of the fact that a decision (a sensible one) has been made it is now time to put forward a solution for future events. Often these transgressions are noticed by competitors after they finish. For those people who 'own up' a time penalty would be appropriate..... longest split for the leg +10%. Deliberate breaking of the rule should result in disqualification. Many fences/walls that are shown as uncrossable can in fact be crossed if you are agile enough..... if caught then they should be disqualified. With time those competitors who are prepared to cheat will be reduced. It happens on the open fell as well, with competitors crossing walls and fences NOT at marked crossing points!
Most people who trangress in this way are not doing it deliberately, and usually own up to it to their fellow racers and club members in a discussion after the race. It is a small step to ask them to report it to the organising team and take the penalty.
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: Penrith Urban
RJ wrote: Often these transgressions are noticed by competitors after they finish. For those people who 'own up' a time penalty would be appropriate..... longest split for the leg +10%. Deliberate breaking of the rule should result in disqualification.
I quite like that idea RJ.
Whilst I realise this thread may be uncomfortable for the race organiser/controller/planner - a position I shall be in very soon - I'd just like to say I think it's amazing and wonderful that we are having it. the information and views which are being disseminated at great speed are invaluable.
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Sloop wrote:However, the notion that DSQ'ing fast splits (say anything under 2-and-a-half minutes - my split was 3:12) achieves any sort of fairness is simplistic and flawed. There were plenty of people who went the wrong way, hunted round for ways through and eventually found the gate, who will have splits not fast enough to be spottable, but who nonetheless should be DSQ'd. ..
Thats the sort of logic that allows people to carry on singing offensive songs at Scottish football matches. Just becasue you cant catch everybody doesnt mean its fairer not to catch anyone at all!
The Cumbrian wrote:I maintain a simple sign entering the start box along the following lines would help (along with more thoughtful planning): "Uncrossable boundarys shall not be crossed even if they appear crossable on the ground - disqualification will result".
I thinik thats slightly missing the point. Its already clear from the map legend that this symbol is NOT TO BE CROSSED. For me the argument is whether you should apply the same penalty for someone who crosses an uncrossable fence by climbing it as for someone who inadvertently (perhaps) crosses a line (gate)which turns out to be different to the map (uncrossable fence).
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
RJ wrote:To be fair to the Organising team they did make it very clear in the final details.....
• Note that thick black lines on the map denote uncrossable barriers which can be a either a wall or section of fence. Do not cross these even if they look crossable.
Yes, but an open gate is neither a wall or a section of fence! I'd go back to something I may have said (or at least thought) earlier - if a gate may or may not be open during an event, why not map it as a gate (or gap) but close it with a red overprint? I think this was done at St Andrews to good effect last year. I think that would at least make it easier for the controller who can be clearer that the competitor is more fully at fault.
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
Sloop's comments make me feel sorry for the planner/ controller.
From all the comments here it isclear to me that there was NO bad planning, NO forseeable problem, and NO reason to anticipate any temptation for competitors to cheat for sure, but even for inadvertant rule breaking.
The rules are clear and DQ or withdrawal is plainly correct. Had an open gate been considered remotely likely then it would have been unwise planning without some monitoring, but these unanticipated things are always going to happen. Competitors need to accept that, read the map and own up when they make an inadvertant error.
I've said it before, but I find it hard to get my head around why people that know they have failed to complete a course are happy to be placed in a results list.
If a rule change means we have a time penalty instead of dq, then so be it, but there are two obvious dangers that such a rule change might cause:
1. People become less careful and take risks across rivate land etc where they may damage the sport.
2. People become sloppy, or even deliberately cheat, in the hope of getting away with it, but in the knowledge that the penalty for being caught is so minor what the hell.
From all the comments here it isclear to me that there was NO bad planning, NO forseeable problem, and NO reason to anticipate any temptation for competitors to cheat for sure, but even for inadvertant rule breaking.
The rules are clear and DQ or withdrawal is plainly correct. Had an open gate been considered remotely likely then it would have been unwise planning without some monitoring, but these unanticipated things are always going to happen. Competitors need to accept that, read the map and own up when they make an inadvertant error.
I've said it before, but I find it hard to get my head around why people that know they have failed to complete a course are happy to be placed in a results list.
If a rule change means we have a time penalty instead of dq, then so be it, but there are two obvious dangers that such a rule change might cause:
1. People become less careful and take risks across rivate land etc where they may damage the sport.
2. People become sloppy, or even deliberately cheat, in the hope of getting away with it, but in the knowledge that the penalty for being caught is so minor what the hell.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
Being positive , the proposal for time penalties has merit but it still has issues that I can see
1) the offender has gained an advantage on later legs by not running as far and we might not penalise enough
2) Some of us are so slow that [i]next[i]"slowest plus 10%" might actually be faster!
3) we may still have breached a landowner's consent, someone's privacy or a police safety requirement -which seems to be the reason for some of the OOB at Penrith
Mrs H, knowing you, I have the feeling that at Malvern you are going to find a way to check every gate immediately before the event and put signs on any that you think might get opened - a lot of effort.
as an aside I didn't like the legs in question; I have a real dislike of reaching a control and then turning around and running over exactly the same ground -wouldn't have been as bad if there had been two controls after entering the school before leaving and re-entering for 19 but that is a personal quibble -and we did have the long leg before to spot the trap/challenge
1) the offender has gained an advantage on later legs by not running as far and we might not penalise enough
2) Some of us are so slow that [i]next[i]"slowest plus 10%" might actually be faster!
3) we may still have breached a landowner's consent, someone's privacy or a police safety requirement -which seems to be the reason for some of the OOB at Penrith
Mrs H, knowing you, I have the feeling that at Malvern you are going to find a way to check every gate immediately before the event and put signs on any that you think might get opened - a lot of effort.
as an aside I didn't like the legs in question; I have a real dislike of reaching a control and then turning around and running over exactly the same ground -wouldn't have been as bad if there had been two controls after entering the school before leaving and re-entering for 19 but that is a personal quibble -and we did have the long leg before to spot the trap/challenge
Possibly the slowest Orienteer in the NE but maybe above average at 114kg
-
AndyC - addict
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:10 am
- Location: Half my Time here the rest there
Re: Penrith Urban
Two (of many,many possible) outcomes -
1) I am a very fast runner so had to stop before control 18 to work out my route to 19, I then ran as fast as possible to 19 (the long/correct way round), as 20 was pretty straight forward, on this occasion I didn't need to stop before, or at 19 to work out my route to 20. I had a really good split on that leg, I am well pleased! Wait a minute - WHY have I been disqualified??
2) I am a really slow runner and my eyesight isn't that brilliant. I think I've spotted a good way to 19 and, although I would normally stop to check the map carefully, can't think why there would be any other option between 18 and 19 on this occasion, why would the planner want me to run a long way round the school grounds to 18 then double-back on myself 180 degrees and run EXACTLY the same route in reverse for most of the leg to 19? I like my route but I'm a bit slow - why have lots of people been disqualified, at least I'm ok!
blah,blah,blah, etc.,etc.,etc.........
1) I am a very fast runner so had to stop before control 18 to work out my route to 19, I then ran as fast as possible to 19 (the long/correct way round), as 20 was pretty straight forward, on this occasion I didn't need to stop before, or at 19 to work out my route to 20. I had a really good split on that leg, I am well pleased! Wait a minute - WHY have I been disqualified??
2) I am a really slow runner and my eyesight isn't that brilliant. I think I've spotted a good way to 19 and, although I would normally stop to check the map carefully, can't think why there would be any other option between 18 and 19 on this occasion, why would the planner want me to run a long way round the school grounds to 18 then double-back on myself 180 degrees and run EXACTLY the same route in reverse for most of the leg to 19? I like my route but I'm a bit slow - why have lots of people been disqualified, at least I'm ok!
blah,blah,blah, etc.,etc.,etc.........
- haloite
- red
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:01 am
Re: Penrith Urban
AndyC wrote:as an aside I didn't like the legs in question; I have a real dislike of reaching a control and then turning around and running over exactly the same ground -wouldn't have been as bad if there had been two controls after entering the school before leaving and re-entering for 19 but that is a personal quibble -and we did have the long leg before to spot the trap/challenge
I did like the leg - sometimes you need variety and in this case the variety was the requirement to dog leg. In urban route choice can be substituted for taking the least possible time to work out theres only one route!
I reckon I lost about 15s or so on the long leg previous to it by running slower with my glasses off trying to work it out. Clearly a lot of people didnt do this and went the wrong way - a good leg IMO. Lessons for all!
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
I think we'll all be looking at the splitbrowser graphs to see any blips round that control among the slower runners - you can run - but you can't hide
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Penrith Urban
I think Mrs H has the right idea - for the Sheffield race this was particuarly obvious on the leg after people had put their hand through the fence to dib as they suddenly had a much shorter next leg. Its not necessarily absolute time but time relative to your overall position which is the clue....
Orienteering - its no walk in the park
- andypat
- god
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:58 pm
- Location: Houston, we have a problem.
Re: Penrith Urban
ER wrote:I was not there but what I don't get is why would a competitor navigate towards that thick black line when the rules are clear that thick black lines are uncrossable regardless of whether the black line can actually be crossed as yesterday with a gate left open or in WOC when the wall in the qualifying heat could be jumped. Why would anyone go that way, unless they made a navigational error?
... or, as I suggested earlier, they did not see the black line whilst on the run / with sweat in their eyes. I do not seek to excuse or condone their actions but would repeat that with the benefit of hindsight the black line might have been more visible had the edge of the circle, which is very close to it, been cut. This is also not criticism of the planner; it is very easy to spot such things in retrospect, and I am guilty myself of not cutting lines on occasions where I should have done.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 207 guests