Emit backup

[graeme]

When would you consider the possibility that there is an equipment fault?

Whenever I believed the competitor's story that it malfunctioned

Either...
1/ Someone was confident enough to pay a protest fee.
2/ Someone who wasn't trying to get reinstated advised me of a problem.
3/ When I could see clearly on the TV replay that she'd used the equipment correctly.

If there is a record in the box, a DQ is more likely: it's evidence of punching too fast, although that's very hard to achieve with new units.

[roadrunner]

As I see it, Emit is a bigger problem here than SI, because Emit cards contain batteries which have an inherently limited life.

If it's your own Emit card, and it fails during the event, then you could say that it was the competitor's fault and disqualify them, although how could a competitor know that their card was within an hour or two of failing? But if it was a hired card, then it's surely completely unfair to penalise the competitor if it fails mid-race.

In both cases, if the card was working at the start, and is faulty at the finish, and the backup punches are there, I think you have to make the assumption that they completed the course.

[andypat]

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?

Weeell I think at least I'd interrogate the unit. It might not show anything but at least I could then say sorry mate there's nothing there. Much better than saying - Sorry mate its not my job to do that...

[graeme]

Emit is a bigger problem here than SI

Since I've been nailed by both this summer...

The problem with EMIT is technical - the clock is in the card, so even when I had all the backup punches and the nice MORavians wanted to reinstate me, they didn't have a time.

(unless there's a secondary timing system, or a relay handover where it doesn't matter).

The problem with SI is legal. You're not allowed to use the backup to reinstate. So even though the nice Canadians know I was at the control (they read the backup), and are convinced I didn't punch too fast (judging correctly that if I had, it's unlikely that I'd announce that the unit didn't flash and beep before downloading) they can't find a legal way to reinstate.

[Roger]

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'.

If the course is planned the 'old' way, with no advantage in taking controls out of order (as was the case when we all used pin punches), why would you disqualify?

[graeme]

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...

...with emit, if competitors don't use the system in the approved manner then it works correctly. (e.g. Marten Bostrom at WOC2013)

[roadrunner]

Since I've been nailed by both this summer...

The problem with EMIT is technical - the clock is in the card, so even when I had all the backup punches and the nice MORavians wanted to reinstate me, they didn't have a time.

(unless there's a secondary timing system, or a relay handover where it doesn't matter).

The problem with SI is legal. You're not allowed to use the backup to reinstate. So even though the nice Canadians know I was at the control (they read the backup), and are convinced I didn't punch too fast (judging correctly that if I had, it's unlikely that I'd announce that the unit didn't flash and beep before downloading).

That's right - but while we could change the rules regarding SI, the problem with Emit is fundamental. Maybe any major event that uses it should have a backup system; many road races do this, it need be no more than a video camera pointing at the finish. In the event of a problem, a quick check of the relevant section of the recording would give a finish time (though there would be no split times). Of course, it's much easier if people are wearing numbers so that you can identify them, and if there's a clock in view of the camera as well.

[andy]

It's a requirement of WREs to have a backup system in place, so it's fairly common at major races in the UK

[Marco Polo]

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'.

If the course is planned the 'old' way, with no advantage in taking controls out of order (as was the case when we all used pin punches), why would you disqualify?

In principle, I don't think you should disqualify, but need to consider..

As with a battery failure on an emit card, you wouldn't get an electronic finish time?

And of course, there are a significant number of events being planned now where that planning approach would not make best use of the area, and there are even more where the decision might be subjective..

[Marco Polo]

It's a requirement of WREs to have a backup system in place, so it's fairly common at major races in the UK

and BOF level A events.

But I think that's point, this should only be an issue at smaller events.

[Glucosamine]

'DQ' has a perjorative sound. Would 'MP' not be kinder?

[andy]

I thought the difference between DQ and MP existed purely from event software differentiating between the two types. mp = missed out control(s), dq = disqualified (no start/finish time, manual disqualification e.g. for going out of bounds)

The distinction ins't in the rules, is it?

[King Penguin]

Maybe NR (no result) would be more appropriate in the case of technology failures - but how could the software differentiate between a control missing because the competitor forgot to go there and because (s)he went there but the unit failed to register ?

Maybe NR would always be better than MP, and even for DQ resulting from OOB transgression etc. ?

[Scott]

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)?

I always try and do this if someone's card shows no record of a punch at a control* but they are insistent that they have actually punched at it, which itself is pretty rare in my experience. The whole process of downloading the unit and checking the relevant time window for any anomalies takes less than five minutes, and can be done at leisure post-event.

A follow up email saying "we checked the unit and it looks as if you punched too quickly" is more useful as feedback to the competitor than "don't know what happened there, sorry", and I find that having taken the effort to check is generally appreciated.

Admittedly, though, I've never had to do SI for really big events.

*Or if their card shows something weird, like a properly recorded punch at the correct time with a non-existent control code. SI does weird stuff sometimes.

If there is a record in the box, a DQ is more likely: it's evidence of punching too fast, although that's very hard to achieve with new units.

I believe (happy to be corrected) that in the case of punching too quickly, reading out the unit should show a record with the card number and an error code. If the reading the unit shows a valid punch, should you still DQ? (Alternatively, should the rules still require you to DQ?)

[graeme]

Scott : yes, too fast and the box shows dιbber number and "errD", or errC if you're really, really fast.

I believe it's not possible to have a correct punch in the unit and nothing written on the card, because the unit reads back from the card. So if you were to see that, its unequivocal evidence of system malfunction => no-DQ.