Controller's Conundrum

[mharky]

Should you be disqualified for a missing finish punch? There was a competitor today who was DSQ for MF.

11.1 Competitors must make sure that they clearly show that all the required controls have been visited.
11.2 A competitor with a missing or unidentifiable punch will be disqualified unless it can be established with certainty that the missing or unidentifiable punch is not the competitor’s fault.

The finish isn't a control, so the above rule doesn't cover it. I couldn't find anything else that would relate to this.

Recording an athletes finishing time used to be the organiser's responsibility, then with the introduction of electronic punching a it became the athletes responsibility.

WRE guidelines do suggest that an independent timing and video recording should be used at the finish. Was that the case today?

[Snail]

For elite competitors, at a WRE, don't IOF Rules apply?

23.5 The finishing time shall be measured at one of the following times:
• when the competitor’s chest crosses the finish line
• when the competitor punches at the finish line
• if a light beam is used for timing, when the competitor breaks the beam which
shall be mounted between 0.5 metres and 1 metre above the ground
• when a transponder, carried by the competitor, crosses the finish line

If the organiser has designated that the 2nd bullet applies, then DSQ for MF seems reasonable.

Or is it a non-elite competitor?

[NeilC]

Most people would consider the finish as a control.

Aside from the fact that only M/W21E are part of the WRE, backup timing is to cover equipment failure not competitor error.

Another conundrum doing the rounds was whether the misplaced control (113) should have moved. Assuming that it was reported by early starters.

[pete.owens]

Another conundrum doing the rounds was whether the misplaced control (113) should have moved. Assuming that it was reported by early starters.

That depends whether the you consider the event to be a important competition (in which fairness of competition should be paramount) or a recreational activity (in which the enjoyment of competitors is more important).

If it is the latter then moving the control (and excluding splits to and from the control) is acceptable as it would improve the experience of later competitors. Any competitors who mpd 113 could also be reinstated. Clearly the organisers do consider the JK to be the latter otherwise they would not be using mixed punching.

If it is the former then it gets more tricky. You certainly shouldn't move the control as even excluding the splits means that early competitors are thrown off their stride. If any one objects then the only option is considering whether to void the course.

[mharky]

Well, it was a World Ranking Event, so at least courses 1 and 2 were serious competitions. And they should have been voided.

[pete.owens]

And another conundrum:
Should competitors who ran through the "thicket" to 121 be disqualified?

[DaveR]

And another conundrum:
Should competitors who ran through the "thicket" to 121 be disqualified?

No.

No conundrum.

It is a thicket, not a "forbidden to cross" feature.

[greywolf]

And another conundrum:
Should competitors who ran through the "thicket" to 121 be disqualified?

No.
No conundrum.
It is a thicket, not a "forbidden to cross" feature.

Yes
The control description may have been thicket but AFAICS from routegadget the feature is mapped using olive green

[DM]

Thickets are mapped as green. What was on the map was not OLIVE green in my opinion. If it was meant to be olive green then it was not distinctly different enough from other greens on the map.

If it was a flower bed then the description would probably not have been thicket would it?

What would the mechanism for disqualifying people be? There was no-one monitoring it and comments by other runners would be unlikely to be accepted. Gps traces would not be accurate enough.

In reality it wasn't a thicket but it may have been before it was pruned. Didn't stop to check the variety of shrub but many are pruned at this time of year to stimulate growth. Could well have been buddleia.

But really, it was a few metres across....

[DM]

Following Greywolfs comment about what the offending thicket looks like on routegadget I would agree it is olive green. But the MAP colours are not different enough and that's what we had in our hands.

No way can we use GPS traces to dq people. Look at the number of building people appear to have run through and you'll see why.

[pete.owens]

Competitor reads the CD - It says thicket SW side. There is a small green blob in the centre of the circle - so reasonable to assume that is the thicket.
When they approach the NE of the "thicket" they see a patch of bark with a small bit of shrub at the far side with a kite beyond it.

So heat of the moment decision (Dave R interpretation) - there was a thicket that had been cut down and the planner had done their best to place the control on the far side of the last remaining bit of vegetation. Run straight to it and punch.

Get back and study the course, notice that the shade of green seems a bit odd and by very careful comparison realise that it was olive green (Greywolf interpretation).

[DM]

Pete

Dq yourself if you want.

But don't expect others to.

The MAP did not allow differentiation of the greens, especially at speed. The MAP should be clear enough to make the correct interpretation.

[Snail]

Don't think competitors can be regarded as at fault it they went through the feature at 121.

If it is supposed to be a thicket, then the map is wrong.
If it is supposed to be an OOB flower bed, then a "thicket, SW side" description is wrong - and sufficiently wrong so as to indicate to competitors that it is ok to go straight through it. Correct description would be "Out of bound area, SW side", which would indicate to competitors the correct action.

(And the Routegadget map appears to show the control in the centre of the feature anyway!)

[andy]

From the IOF rules http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uplo ... n-2017.pdf

WOC
WCup
JWOC
23.10 Two independent timekeeping systems, a primary and a secondary, shall be used continuously throughout the competition.

Only applicable to WOC/WCup/JWOC.

So no reason to reinstate anyone missing the finish for a lack of 2nd timing system.

[andypat]

Don't think competitors can be regarded as at fault it they went through the feature at 121.

If it is supposed to be a thicket, then the map is wrong.
If it is supposed to be an OOB flower bed, then a "thicket, SW side" description is wrong - and sufficiently wrong so as to indicate to competitors that it is ok to go straight through it. Correct description would be "Out of bound area, SW side", which would indicate to competitors the correct action.

(And the Routegadget map appears to show the control in the centre of the feature anyway!)

As does the actual map. Agree - no grounds to DQ anyone. It’s an anomalous feature which doesn’t show up well on the map and doesn’t correspond to the CD. Suspect the controller would of pressed admit to an error and not dq anyone.