Yes, yes, yes..... we can discuss the merits of making the race fair for everyone and make sure the winner really is the winner.
BUT.... the indiscretions by the competitors (allegedly) of crossing a clearly marked 'NOT TO BE CROSSED FENCE' is far more serious than the veracity of the race. It doesn't matter whether the fence was crossable (physically, and easily), it was marked on the map as a feature not to be crossed and two or more crossing points were provided for that purpose. The organiser/planner had decided that, perhaps to meet the requirements of the landowner, that the fence was not to be crossed.
We have been here before. Those that disobey the instruction may very well have to be disciplined in some way, before we all are.... in the form of having the use of the land removed for our use. Come on guys, just don't put the future of the sport in jeopardy by careless navigation and inattention to the clear message on the map. What excuse are you going to come up with to mitigate the landowner's anger?
Name and shame??? Lose your right to compete in level A and B events for 12 months??? Remove from the ranking list for a year??? Pay a hefty fine???
Boc non disqualifications
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Boc non disqualifications
roadrunner wrote:Is the map on Routegadget (straight unbroken lines between the controls) the same as the competition map?
Routegadget draws unbroken straight lines between controls and attempts to put the control number somewhere sensible.
Extra details such as crossing points and overprinted fences will only show up if they are on the base map used to set up the event. Even then there is no guarantee that each course had the same overprint details.
-
Simon E - green
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:13 pm
- Location: St Albans
Re: Boc non disqualifications
No I didn't use other people to guide me to a control.... I always say "if it's not on the map, it doesn't exist" meaning of course that it's of little use in navigation. Other people come into this category and I do my best to ignore them. I believe this mostly works in my favour as I think it avoids my being distracted from the correct route far more often than I ignore someone who would have been "helpful".
Whatever any one says, I believe that people who knowingly disobey the rules to gain an advantage or accidentally break the rules and gain an advantage and then don't own up are cheating (whether at golf or orienteering).
Whatever any one says, I believe that people who knowingly disobey the rules to gain an advantage or accidentally break the rules and gain an advantage and then don't own up are cheating (whether at golf or orienteering).
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: The C word
graeme wrote:"Lots of others did the same, nobody protested, I'm not going to punish you for being honest, and I'm very busy so please leave me alone"
I've had the same response when trying to DSQ myself after realising that I had gained an advantage by unintentionally crossing some olive green at a major event on an ISSOM map.
I sometimes think we orienteers have a genuinely weird attitude to the rules: it's almost as if we see transgressions - accidental or otherwise - as something deeply embarrassing, to be hushed up at all costs lest anybody call into question the whole integrity of the sport.
RJ wrote:Name and shame??? Lose your right to compete in level A and B events for 12 months???
This appears to be the approach adopted by fellrunning.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: The C word
Scott wrote:RJ wrote:Name and shame??? Lose your right to compete in level A and B events for 12 months???
This appears to be the approach adopted by fellrunning.
Yes but Fell Running has a governing body which actually governs the sport rather than BO who seem merely to administer it. This may be because all of the FRA committee are active fell runners
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: Boc non disqualifications
RJ wrote:Yes, yes, yes..... we can discuss the merits of making the race fair for everyone and make sure the winner really is the winner.
BUT.... the indiscretions by the competitors (allegedly) of crossing a clearly marked 'NOT TO BE CROSSED FENCE' is far more serious than the veracity of the race. It doesn't matter whether the fence was crossable (physically, and easily), it was marked on the map as a feature not to be crossed and two or more crossing points were provided for that purpose. The organiser/planner had decided that, perhaps to meet the requirements of the landowner, that the fence was not to be crossed.
We have been here before. Those that disobey the instruction may very well have to be disciplined in some way, before we all are.... in the form of having the use of the land removed for our use. Come on guys, just don't put the future of the sport in jeopardy by careless navigation and inattention to the clear message on the map. What excuse are you going to come up with to mitigate the landowner's anger?
Name and shame??? Lose your right to compete in level A and B events for 12 months??? Remove from the ranking list for a year??? Pay a hefty fine???
No question about it we were all told in the final details that some apparently crossable fences were being marked as uncrossable because of their fragile state. Done specifically at the request of the landowner.
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re. The C word
EddieH wrote:I have now had a reply.
The controller seems to think that the only alternative to letting things stand is to void the course, as he thinks that these runners might possibly have achieved these times and therefore he has no proof.
Sorry mykind, but you can't pin this on BO. We have a detailed appeals system which entrusts decisions to controllers and organisers who are active orienteers. We may not agree with this decision, but Eddie reluctantly accepts it. Anyone who REALLY DOESNT AGREE IN A BIG SHOUTY WAY can put a protest to a jury and onward to the Events Committee.
Last edited by graeme on Sat May 07, 2016 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Boc non disqualifications
EddieH wrote:I have now had a reply.
The controller seems to think that the only alternative to letting things stand is to void the course, as he thinks that these runners might possibly have achieved these times and therefore he has no proof.
So be it, but it doesn't look good and it will just perpetuate and probably increase the very casual attitude many orienteers have to OOB.
Perhaps its time some of us reminded those that might have erred of the rules on self disqualification over the next few days.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
The Controller's report on the BOC web site indicates he does consider some individuals, mainly M60s, did cross fences designated as forbidden to cross.
- DavidHH
- off string
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:58 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
It feels as though the outcome is somewhat indecisive following the complaints to this incident. The response to the complaints has been that there was felt to be a lack of significant impact related to the failure by some runners to use the marked crossing points. This lack of impact was put in terms of there only being marginal benefits on a short leg and that the top three were not affected with the only other option apparently being to void the course. However, as RJ also points out, I'm not sure that there is a lack of significant impact if the future use of the area were to be compromised by a failure to deter people from crossing at points deemed to be uncrossable. This is a major event and the area is probably the most technical in the West Midlands and would be a major loss if it could not be used again.
As regards the possibility of disqualifying individuals, it should be possible to pick out unusual times by some sort of statistical process, such as control charts, but possibly rather over complex for what's needed. I don't understand how Splitsbrowser generates its graph but if you look at the M60 course, leg 8-9, then the faster runners with suspect times seem to have flat lines at this point whilst others have sloping lines. Perhaps someone else can comment on whether this has sufficient meaning to be useful.
As regards the possibility of disqualifying individuals, it should be possible to pick out unusual times by some sort of statistical process, such as control charts, but possibly rather over complex for what's needed. I don't understand how Splitsbrowser generates its graph but if you look at the M60 course, leg 8-9, then the faster runners with suspect times seem to have flat lines at this point whilst others have sloping lines. Perhaps someone else can comment on whether this has sufficient meaning to be useful.
- Jona
Re: Boc non disqualifications
So is this the end of the matter?. the BOF web page states 'If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily then a protest can be lodged with the Controller who will, if necessary, convene a Jury.'
Looks like it was not felt that a jury was necessary, and doesn't look that the decision can be appealed. Shame that it seems acceptable to be able to cheat without any comeback in our top competition. Even the planner recognized there was cheating ' featured a leg which was too short to support the choice involved, and led to cheating'.
Maybe 'must not be crossed' is just a guideline
Looks like it was not felt that a jury was necessary, and doesn't look that the decision can be appealed. Shame that it seems acceptable to be able to cheat without any comeback in our top competition. Even the planner recognized there was cheating ' featured a leg which was too short to support the choice involved, and led to cheating'.
Maybe 'must not be crossed' is just a guideline
- jonesy
- string
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:48 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
On a lighter note, it is clear that many people do not know the rules, (and we are rather bad at informing people of the really important ones such as this).
Yesterday at Glen Affric I watched the first 30 or so starters. 5 of them arrived at the start kite and then looked all round it, whether looking for an SI unit, a number, some instructions or what I have no idea.
Yesterday at Glen Affric I watched the first 30 or so starters. 5 of them arrived at the start kite and then looked all round it, whether looking for an SI unit, a number, some instructions or what I have no idea.
- EddieH
- god
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:04 pm
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Not impacting the top 3 is surely not the only important outcome. Land access and the fairness of the overall competition for those further down the results list is also important.
If I had been the controller I would have issued an email to all competitors pointing out the illegal crossing and asking them to disqualify themselves if on reflection they crossed it. Also stating that failing that they will be following up with competitors judged to have crossed it by their splits to confirm their route choice.
If I had been the controller I would have issued an email to all competitors pointing out the illegal crossing and asking them to disqualify themselves if on reflection they crossed it. Also stating that failing that they will be following up with competitors judged to have crossed it by their splits to confirm their route choice.
What are pictorial descriptions?
- Electrocuted
- red
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:49 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Boc non disqualifications
IMO the "decision", if has been made, is mixing up apples with oranges. Rule 5.3 on disqualification is taken purely on whether the competitor(s) broke any rules and is independent of whether courses are voided for whatever reason. Both the planner and controller state that competitors broke the rules in their race reports.
Rule 5.3 says "A competitor who has been found to have broken any rule will be disqualified unless there is a significant reason as to why they should not be. Ignorance of the rules is not a significant reason."
If M60's with probably an average of 30 years experience aren't sufficiently old or ugly enough to be DQed it makes you wonder who is.
Rule 5.3 says "A competitor who has been found to have broken any rule will be disqualified unless there is a significant reason as to why they should not be. Ignorance of the rules is not a significant reason."
If M60's with probably an average of 30 years experience aren't sufficiently old or ugly enough to be DQed it makes you wonder who is.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Boc non disqualifications
Getting bored with this discussion going round in circles Is there a High Court injunction on naming the culprits???
Might spend some time looking at the results & do it
Might spend some time looking at the results & do it
Go orienteering in Lithuania......... best in the world:)
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
Real Name - Gross
http://www.scottishotours.info
-
Gross - god
- Posts: 2693
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:13 am
- Location: Heading back to Scotland
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests