DQ'd at a road crossing

[blindasabat]

I recently had the unfortunate experience (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) of being DQ'd at an urban event because I had not recorded a punch at one side of a road crossing, although I had recorded a punch at the other side.

I think I probably punched too quickly, mistaking the bleeping of the pedestrian crossing for he bleep of the punch.

The rules on missing punches are pretty clear. If you have a missing punch you are DQ'd unless you can prove it's not your fault. And the rules have been correctly applied in my case. However, has the rule been written with normal 'navigable' controls in mind rather than road crossings?

A road crossing is like a normal control in that you have to navigate to it and punch to give 'proof of passage', but it is also different in that two punches are required. Clearly, any one punch of the two is sufficient to satisfy the 'proof of passage' requirement that the rules around missing punches have undoubtedly been written for. The other punch? Well that is merely present so that the 'crossing time' can be excluded from the competitors time. If that punch is missing then the time cannot be removed and the competitor suffers for their mistake with a longer time for the course than would otherwise be.

So IMHO, applying the missing punch rule and DQing a competitor, where a punch one side of a crossing is missing, is somewhat draconian and probably not the original intention of those drafting the rule. Time for another look at this maybe?

[NeilC]

The positioning of the controls might ensure that competitors cross perpendicular to the road, perhaps at a pedestrian crossing or via an island etc. This might have been a condition of using the area. Missing one control could have been a result of a competitor crossing a busy road diagonally causing a nuisance to motorists.

[blindasabat]

Fair comment NeilC. It is true that competitors may often 'break the conditions' applied to an area by crossing walls. flowerbeds etc. In this case, the pedestrian crossing was manned so that bib numbers of miscreants could be recorded.

I'm really not moaning as I thoroughly enjoyed the event and wouldn't be challenging the leaderboard anyway. However, it did make me think about the reasonableness or otherwise of the strict application of the rules in the particular circumstance of missing punches at road crossings.

[graeme]

This is essentially the same issue as the old "forgetting to punch at the map exchange". You could prove you've been there because you have the second map. It was formally a DQ, but caring controllers tended to reinstate since "The spirit of fairness and good fellowship shall be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport" .

The practical problem with a timed-out road crossing is that, without both punches, the organiser can't tell how much time to subtract. Even allowing for "good fellowship", that makes it difficult to reinstate you with "fairness".

[Tatty]

I too forgot to punch the second side of the first road crossing. I don't expect to get re instated, but realise that my "timed out" time could not be allocated. A shame as I had had a reasonable run.

[Freefall]

In my own little battle with Dusty Too I see he forgot to punch as well. I nearly forgot as well in my haste to get going on my course again. The temptation was to take a diagonal line across the road rather than a straight line as this was the obvious way to head for the next control.

[madmike]

This is essentially the same issue as the old "forgetting to punch at the map exchange". You could prove you've been there because you have the second map. It was formally a DQ, but caring controllers tended to reinstate since "The spirit of fairness and good fellowship shall be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport" .

The practical problem with a timed-out road crossing is that, without both punches, the organiser can't tell how much time to subtract. Even allowing for "good fellowship", that makes it difficult to reinstate you with "fairness".

Yep I was once reinstated with a minute penalty for not punching at the second master map by a caring controller at a DFOK local event many years ago. his reasoning was that as I had copied the 2nd part of the course I had clearly been there.

I also recall a very good orienteer being DQ for not punching a road crossing control at a level A forest event as we had placed a control to slow people down before a road crossing and everyone from the north start had to run past it. The athlete in question accepted his DQ after discussing it with me (organizer) when I explained that at a Level A event the caring controller was not an option and he decided not to raise a protest even though he was disappointed as he had won his age group by 10 minutes.

I feel that a timed out road crossing makes it even more complex when controllers apply the fairness test and makes a caring controller reinstatement hard gusting impossible.

[andy]

I've mp'd at a badly designed water stop at the french 5 days in the past, losing my competitiveness in a week long competition based on time. You quickly learn that being a muppet isn't in your best interests and endeavor to not repeat the mistake!

[graeme]

the fairness test and makes a caring controller reinstatement hard gusting impossible.

Reasonable people can have different views on this, but I'd disagree. There was no intention to gain time, and no time was in fact gained.

It's obviously possible reinstate Mr.Bat with his total time, effectively a penalty of however long it took to cross the road.

The fairness questions are then:

1/ Is it fair to other competitors? I'd say it is. If results show that Mr.Bat visited all the flags faster than they did, its fair because that's what happened. If his rivals were faster, its also fair. His misdemeanour wouldn't let him beat anyone
2/ Is it fair to Mr.Bat? That's up to him to decide: if the crossing time cost him places, he might decide its fairer not to be reinstated, but seems unlikely.
3/ Is it fair to future organisers? If people start habitually not bothering to punch and expecting reinstatement then maybe not, but my opinion is probably not.

So if it were up to me Mr.Bat (which it isn't), you'd be back in.

No criticism whatsoever of the organiser is intended here.

[blindasabat]

So if it were up to me Mr.Bat (which it isn't), you'd be back in.

That would be very kind of you Graeme, however I think the real test as you intimate is, is there any gain being had an thus is it unfair to other competitors ?

The comparison with the map exchange doesn't really apply as you could gain time at a map exchange by not punching, whereas failing to punch at one of the two controls at a road crossing will only cost time - i.e. no gain. Thus no competitor is habitually not going to punch.

It seems to me that the only argument given so far which backs up a DQ would be the situation where the two controls enforce a safe crossing route at an unmanned road crossing and an unfair advantage could possibly be had by choosing an angled crossing (but I doubt that this would outweigh the timeloss).
In my case the crossing was manned and could only be crossed on the pedestrian light cycle. I unfortunately confused the crossing bleep for the bleep of my punch. I'll just have to buy a faster e-card

[babs f]

I'll just have to buy a faster e-card

I seem to remember that you claimed you needed one last week.

[NeilC]

The comparison with the map exchange doesn't really apply as you could gain time at a map exchange by not punching, whereas failing to punch at one of the two controls at a road crossing will only cost time - i.e. no gain. Thus no competitor is habitually not going to punch.

It's not difficult to imagine a (poorly planned) leg which involves a significant detour to get to the designated crossing point. In such a case it could be quicker (even with the time out removed) to illegally cross the road and only punch the far side control.

[Marco Polo]

The comparison with the map exchange doesn't really apply as you could gain time at a map exchange by not punching, whereas failing to punch at one of the two controls at a road crossing will only cost time - i.e. no gain. Thus no competitor is habitually not going to punch.

It's not difficult to imagine a (poorly planned) leg which involves a significant detour to get to the designated crossing point. In such a case it could be quicker (even with the time out removed) to illegally cross the road and only punch the far side control.

Definitely poorly planned as it would probably be quicker to cross illegally and then punch both controls in the correct order

[pete.owens]

It's not difficult to imagine a (poorly planned) leg which involves a significant detour to get to the designated crossing point. In such a case it could be quicker (even with the time out removed) to illegally cross the road and only punch the far side control.

I once competed at an event where imediately following a timed out crossing my chosen route involved re-crossing the same road. In that case failure to cross the road in the first place would definately have given me an advantage.

[blindasabat]

I once competed at an event where imediately following a timed out crossing my chosen route involved re-crossing the same road. In that case failure to cross the road in the first place would definately have given me an advantage.

You'd have to explain that a bit more. You would still have had to go to the x-ing point to punch at least one of the controls and you'd have lost the time exclusion if you hadn't have punched both. How could it be advantageous not to cross and punch both?