Emit backup

[graeme]

From the latest BOF rules...

If a competitor loses, or breaks, their e-card during a race then they are unlikely to be able to demonstrate that they have completed the course correctly and should be disqualified. Even if the competitor has used pin punches to complete the course they will be unable to demonstrate that these controls were taken in the correct order

it seems from this that the emit backup should not be used any more. Particularly since the position of the pins for each number is known ahead of time, so "fillling in" a skipped control with a pin is straightforward.

[andy]

maybe we need to run the two systems in parallel, touch free SI, touch free emit, carry both devices, both units at each control

[greywolf]

... and then rule 8.9.5 (this is in Appendix A: event systems) says:

"For consistency it is preferable to enforce disqualification at all events....The underlying principle is that if competitors use the system in the approved manner then it works correctly. If competitors were allowed to get away with not punching properly, it could easily become the norm..."

all of which seems to miss the point that the problem isn't that competitors are going out and breaking emit brikkes, but that the brikkes being handed out by event organisers are dead or dying... presumably the BOFocracy think that clubs should not only dq competitors with dead brikkes but charge them the £35 (or whatever) "breakage or loss" deposit?

[andy]

solution: get your emit brikke?

[Big Jon]

What about dodgy SI dibbers? - see Graeme's travails in Canada........

[DaveR]

... and then rule 8.9.5 (this is in Appendix A: event systems) says:

"For consistency it is preferable to enforce disqualification at all events....The underlying principle is that if competitors use the system in the approved manner then it works correctly. If competitors were allowed to get away with not punching properly, it could easily become the norm..."

all of which seems to miss the point ....

Indeed it does, it starts from the demonstrably untrue "underlying principal" that the technology NEVER fails if used properly.

[graeme]

What about dodgy SI dibbers? - see Graeme's travails in Canada........

Same problem.
Background: I couldn't get the control to work and assumed it was dead. I also failed to spot the backup punch (tied to the control and hanging inside the bag) - they hadn't used backup punches on previous days, and had reinstated james on a dead control, but this was a WRE and they did everything correctly. The control worked for everyone else, including me when I went back.

Under these "stricter" BOF rules I would have a much stronger case for reinstatement. Since the pin punch is invalid as backup, I shouldn't be expected to use it and the punching system was not working correctly. Under WRE rules, it was legitimately argued that the pin punch worked fine, and the absence of feedback meant I should have used it.

Regarding
For consistency it is preferable ...
I take this to be a statement of fact because DQ'ing everyone is consistent. However, read it alongside ...

6.1
The spirit of fairness and good fellowship is to be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport, including the interpretation of these Rules

... which makes it clear that interpretations should be based on fairness, not consistency. So 8.9.5 is based on a lesser criterion and therefore should not be applied unless all outcomes are equally "fair and in good fellowship".

... and it won't be by me!

[awk]

all of which seems to miss the point that the problem isn't that competitors are going out and breaking emit brikkes, but that the brikkes being handed out by event organisers are dead or dying... presumably the BOFocracy think that clubs should not only dq competitors with dead brikkes but charge them the £35 (or whatever) "breakage or loss" deposit?

Except that the brikkes have been neither been broken nor lost by the competitor - so do these rules then apply? Indeed, can they, especially given the fairness rules? There certainly wouldn't be much 'good fellowship' if there was an attempt to apply this rule!

[NeilC]

Please remember that these rules were not written by lawyers paid hundreds of pounds per hour to get things watertight. They were written by volunteers to provide a framework by which organisers/controllers/juries could make sensible decisions. Some examples:

1) Should a competitor who drops their SI card at the start and then goes round the course (possibly not in the correct order) using pin punch back ups be disqualified? Yes -they have not completed the course 'properly'.

2) Should pin punches be accepted when there is evidence that a unit has failed totally or intermittently? Yes - not the competitor's fault.

3) Should pin punches be accepted when an EMIT card has failed mid-course? This is a difficult one since it is impossible (I believe) to predict when a card might fail, but they do. Whilst EMIT remains an approved system, and until EMIT or organisers can provide reliable guidance on whether a card is fully functional, then I believe that we have to accept pin punches as a substitute for a failed card.

4) Is the underlying premise that the technology is completely reliable valid? No, but errors are actually quite rare. The assumption that the competitor has made a mistake (not punched, punched too fast) is likely to be much more valid than an assumption that the equipment has failed. Some competitors may lose out by this assumption but that may be a price to pay to save having to follow up all mispunches for the possibility of faulty equipment. For events of WOC status etc interrogating the forest units for evidence of competitor error / malfunction is more realistic.

The rules as they stand (and those quoted above are not new for 2014) may not cover all eventualities - they could be made to do so but would probably then be so long that nobody would ever read them. Of course some Nopesport readers are no doubt capable of writing a better set of rules to cover this topic - please do so and post them here for comment. I'm sure the E&CC would then be happy to consider them.

[PhilJ]

So does this rule now mean that the planner will no longer be putting out back up pin punches at every control site for events, level A / B? and if a control is dead - as I have across Si units that have been dead/died during the competition and used a back up punch (i can remember a unit on day 2 of JK that seemed dead as no beep noise or light - so I and many people punched the map and carried on - it transpired when i did download that the unit had recorded my visit on the si card - how was I to know???), that everyone is DQ'd as the competitor cannot prove visiting the site? So a whole class/course is DQ'd?
For the rule makers to decide that SI and EMIT units are infallible and work 100% of the time is naive to say the least...simple point would be SI units use batteries so have a finite life and a battery can fail at anytime.

[NeilC]

So does this rule ...

To which rule are you referring?

[andypat]

The assumption that the competitor has made a mistake (not punched, punched too fast) is likely to be much more valid than an assumption that the equipment has failed. Some competitors may lose out by this assumption but that may be a price to pay to save having to follow up all mispunches for the possibility of faulty equipment. For events of WOC status etc interrogating the forest units for evidence of competitor error / malfunction is more realistic.

I'm not sure why there has to be an assumption that either the equipment or the competitor is at fault? Surely its reasonable to expect as a competitor that any apparent failure of the equipment used is checked out? If there's a possibility that it could be the fault of the organiser's equipment, but the organiser (apparently) can't be arsed finding out, I'm not sure what sort of image that provides of the sport to newcomers.

[NeilC]

If there's a possibility that it could be the fault of the organiser's equipment, but the organiser (apparently) can't be arsed finding out, I'm not sure what sort of image that provides of the sport to newcomers.

Would you propose downloading and thoroughly testing a unit even if only 1 out of 300 competitors registered a mispunch there (and punched in the middle of the race)? When would you consider the possibility that there is an equipment fault? Every mispunch?

[graeme]

Don't they understand that there is nothing much at stake and the main aim should be to ensure people have fun?

<like>


Here's another guideline we can all agree with.

8.12.1
There are no simple rules that can be defined as to what action to take when a
problem arises since different outcomes are warranted depending on the exact
circumstances.

Please remember that these rules ... were written by volunteers

...with no especially greater expertise* than the event volunteers. Better to leave decisions about fairness and good fellowship to the people in possession of the full facts - the event controller and jury.

Based on the above I would suggest deleting all of sections A8.8 - A8.11 and replace them with a reminder of 6.1.

*Where I'm being charitable in the case of whoever wrote "The underlying principle is that if competitors use the system in the approved manner then it works correctly."

[greywolf]

Another problem with a statement like ""The underlying principle is that if competitors use the system in the approved manner then it works correctly." is that it doesn't cater for the all-too-common (in N Scotland) circumstances where event organisers don't use the system in the approved mannner...