British Relays
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: British Relays
11 pm Well they still don't seem to have published the results (despite publishing the podium photos) so perhaps they are having a think about it.
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: British Relays
Where do competitors apply for a refund? Or is it now ok for BO to keep all the money from an event that did not provide the quality competitors demand. So it's ok for competitors to have to prove they punched a control but when it is the events fault no comeback.
Courses affected should have been voided and All competitors refunded and no BRC elite winners this year, so wake up BO and get it right next year.
While you're at it chuck that piece of jobbie SIAC in the bin.
But at least there is a crap website, small mercies.
Courses affected should have been voided and All competitors refunded and no BRC elite winners this year, so wake up BO and get it right next year.
While you're at it chuck that piece of jobbie SIAC in the bin.
But at least there is a crap website, small mercies.
- PhilJ
- green
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:59 am
Re: British Relays
Glad the 6-Days isn't using mixed punching.......
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: British Relays
Results published just not linked to
https://www.mdoc.org.uk/results-archive ... index.html
Looking forward to summer series orienteering with pin punching.
https://www.mdoc.org.uk/results-archive ... index.html
Looking forward to summer series orienteering with pin punching.
- JamieP
- off string
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:26 pm
Re: British Relays
PhilJ wrote:While you're at it chuck that piece of jobbie SIAC in the bin.
Calm down.
All technology will have failures(1) we need a system of rules that deals with these failures sensibly - we clearly don't at the moment as lots of examples above show.
(1) Some technical, some operator, some software
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: British Relays
Given there appear to be significant technology issues with SIAC (and maybe with other SI units?) at the BRC, which might include battery failure, surely the benefit of doubt should have been given to competitors. SIAC appears to be being promoted by BO/clubs so, if issues, they should accept there are problems and not unreasonably disq. I saw many men's elite runners through the final control and after the control all (I think) either looked at their SIAC for the flash or held it to their ear for the bleep. It appeared to be their normal technique, so they must have thought they were OK.
- ianandmonika
- red
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:03 pm
Re: British Relays
Out of interest... How many runners used SIAC at the w/e, and how many were dsqd? At the risk of beng controversial, I would suggest there is more 'operator error' than the technology not working... Discuss.
-
lakesorunner - white
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: generally somewhere close
Re: British Relays
lakesorunner wrote: At the risk of beng controversial, I would suggest there is more 'operator error' than the technology not working... Discuss.
Whilst appreciating that operator error hasnt been ruled out, unless you have evidence to support, then you are being speculative as well as controversial.
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: British Relays
Looking at the Men's Open results it seems that two controls were problematic 188 and 193. About half a dozen other runners don't have splits for these controls but weren't disqualified. First impressions are equipment failure but hopefully we will get to know in due course.
I agree with DaveR that lessons learnt / good practice needs to be passed forward. I was hoping that the Major Events Manager would take this on.
There has to be some onus on the competitor to punch properly, in a relay sprint out a competitor not punching properly could easily gain a decisive 5m over someone punching properly (especially with non-contactless). Just because they were seen at the control doesn't mean that they deserve the win. I've also been an official at many events where a competitor swears blind that they punched properly but then we find evidence that they didn't. There will almost certainly have been cases of individual equipment-related failures but I still believe that the balance of probability is with competitor error for isolated cases. At the JK Trophy relay we had a top team mispunch, the runner claims that they punched properly at the control but of the circa 1000 people that punched at the control their's was the only mispunch. We could have given the benefit of the doubt, and denied another team a place on the podium, but stuck with the rules. Writing rules is not easy and 6.1 allows for some common sense to be applied. Had there been multiple mispunches at the control then I suspect that there would have been a different outcome.
Regarding MrD's point about batteries, for the JK we specified a minimum battery voltage that a unit had to have before it could be used. Those that were below this were either not used or had their batteries replaced.
I agree with DaveR that lessons learnt / good practice needs to be passed forward. I was hoping that the Major Events Manager would take this on.
There has to be some onus on the competitor to punch properly, in a relay sprint out a competitor not punching properly could easily gain a decisive 5m over someone punching properly (especially with non-contactless). Just because they were seen at the control doesn't mean that they deserve the win. I've also been an official at many events where a competitor swears blind that they punched properly but then we find evidence that they didn't. There will almost certainly have been cases of individual equipment-related failures but I still believe that the balance of probability is with competitor error for isolated cases. At the JK Trophy relay we had a top team mispunch, the runner claims that they punched properly at the control but of the circa 1000 people that punched at the control their's was the only mispunch. We could have given the benefit of the doubt, and denied another team a place on the podium, but stuck with the rules. Writing rules is not easy and 6.1 allows for some common sense to be applied. Had there been multiple mispunches at the control then I suspect that there would have been a different outcome.
Regarding MrD's point about batteries, for the JK we specified a minimum battery voltage that a unit had to have before it could be used. Those that were below this were either not used or had their batteries replaced.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Relays
Many years ago at an event in Germany Stephan Kramer was doing the IT side. He stated that he favoured changing the batteries in SI units before every major event, precisely in order to avoid this sort of issue.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: British Relays
Yes, Big Jon, but that was when the batteries were the heavy NiCd version. The Li batteries last much longer, are more reliable, and can be monitored more precisely. I understand that the BRC units were tested for voltage and were all of an adequate value.
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: British Relays
Given that one of the major gripes about emit seems to be that you cant tell when the battery is about to go, I wonder how many clubs/organisers actually check the SI unit battery before each event
(Of course it would help if it was easier to change the batteries - the last time I sent two units to Sport Ident they went missing for a few weeks causing a little stress at our end as I hadnt paid extra for postage insurance ). I'm not even sure if they are supposed to be posted with that type of battery are they?
(Of course it would help if it was easier to change the batteries - the last time I sent two units to Sport Ident they went missing for a few weeks causing a little stress at our end as I hadnt paid extra for postage insurance ). I'm not even sure if they are supposed to be posted with that type of battery are they?
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: British Relays
Or perhaps as much by Sport Ident and a number of enthusiastic individuals? Looking at it slightly cynically, now that many people own an SI card of some description, Sport Ident's business model needs to be able to sell them something new - and those people who have bought / been given a SIAC card want to be able to use it!ianandmonika wrote:SIAC appears to be being promoted by BO/clubs
But from a club perspective I think we are lukewarm. We have a large stock of SI hire cards that we won't switch to SIAC - too expensive, particularly given the limited life. It tends to require a more formal start / finish layout, which we don't bother with at local events. So at present the only pull in that direction would be if we start to lose customers by not offering mixed punching. Or for sprint races where it can/does make a difference.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: British Relays
Housewife - my apologies! I had forgotten that and was working of things I remembered from courses i have run!
OK, so riddle me this: We were told, by the jury, to our faces, that there had been multiple miss punches at control 193, the one affecting ShUOC. AFAIK, NOC and FVO were the only ones MP'd at 188 (we were also told this at the time), but that may have changed looking over other courses. i.e. in direct contradiction to what you just said.
The reason we suspect a dodgy box is because of the following: On last leg I caught our 3rd team's first-leg runner (first timer, out for 129mins, still loved it) and told him to tuck in and I'd see him home. At 193 I air-punched, SI beeped and registered. He then manually punched straight after me (he was using my old SI v11 SI Card), but it didn't register - being a newbie he didn't pin-punch, so fair dos he should be DQ'd. Mark Bown punched about 2mins after me and said he had to pin-punch as box still dead.
Nathan was running with Duncan Coombes. Duncan reached the control just before him and his punched registered. Nathan's SIAC beeped but didn't register, the SI box apparently 'worn out' from the intensity of Coombsey's punch? apparently this is possible, SI11 cards could flash but not register. Rich Robinson said he had seen similar issues of boxes unable to handle rapid successive punches when low on battery in the past.
We wanted to go and get the box to test this out but weren't allowed. This request here, checking that an organisational mistake hasn't been made, strikes me as common sense.
Obviously if the feedback system to show a punch has registered has occurred positively, you don't pin-punch your map, otherwise you'd pin punch at every control, just in case.
Anyway, I believe Nathan has been through the rules and is now considering a switch to a law course, with a 1500+ word document on its way to someone.
We have a 'tradition' that someone guilty of miss punching in a relay foots the entry fee for the team, buys a round and must finish a dirty pint. I'd like an address to send the invoices for the entry and the round (shouldn't be too much, beer's cheap in Sheffield), as well as a suitably dirty pint.
NeilC wrote: We could have given the benefit of the doubt, and denied another team a place on the podium, but stuck with the rules. Writing rules is not easy and 6.1 allows for some common sense to be applied. Had there been multiple mispunches at the control then I suspect that there would have been a different outcome.
OK, so riddle me this: We were told, by the jury, to our faces, that there had been multiple miss punches at control 193, the one affecting ShUOC. AFAIK, NOC and FVO were the only ones MP'd at 188 (we were also told this at the time), but that may have changed looking over other courses. i.e. in direct contradiction to what you just said.
The reason we suspect a dodgy box is because of the following: On last leg I caught our 3rd team's first-leg runner (first timer, out for 129mins, still loved it) and told him to tuck in and I'd see him home. At 193 I air-punched, SI beeped and registered. He then manually punched straight after me (he was using my old SI v11 SI Card), but it didn't register - being a newbie he didn't pin-punch, so fair dos he should be DQ'd. Mark Bown punched about 2mins after me and said he had to pin-punch as box still dead.
Nathan was running with Duncan Coombes. Duncan reached the control just before him and his punched registered. Nathan's SIAC beeped but didn't register, the SI box apparently 'worn out' from the intensity of Coombsey's punch? apparently this is possible, SI11 cards could flash but not register. Rich Robinson said he had seen similar issues of boxes unable to handle rapid successive punches when low on battery in the past.
We wanted to go and get the box to test this out but weren't allowed. This request here, checking that an organisational mistake hasn't been made, strikes me as common sense.
Obviously if the feedback system to show a punch has registered has occurred positively, you don't pin-punch your map, otherwise you'd pin punch at every control, just in case.
Anyway, I believe Nathan has been through the rules and is now considering a switch to a law course, with a 1500+ word document on its way to someone.
We have a 'tradition' that someone guilty of miss punching in a relay foots the entry fee for the team, buys a round and must finish a dirty pint. I'd like an address to send the invoices for the entry and the round (shouldn't be too much, beer's cheap in Sheffield), as well as a suitably dirty pint.
M21-Lairy
- ba-ba
- diehard
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: somewhere in the between
Re: British Relays
DaveR wrote:One of my hobby horses is how in orienteering we refuse to learn from our mistakes.
and
The IOF approach is, as far as I can tell, is not to admit that protests have been submitted, never mind saying what their outcome is or the reasoning behind their chosen outcome.
In fact, the IOF requires that the "jury’s decision (including reasons) should be written on the complaint/protest form" and returned to the Protester. See IOF jury guidelines.
In addition, "the IOF Event Adviser should report details of any protests and the jury decision in the final report". Such details are then gathered together and any unusual/interesting ones are treated as case studies and circulated to all IOF Event Advisers some time later ... learning from mistakes, therefore.
I think the IOF does things rather better than we do ...
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests