Four days on and not even a provisional result is a little disappointing, but I guess it's a fair bit of work to sort out the mess? Were all of the courses affected?
My loose control descriptions on 1S only went up to 17. Combined with the "not very much circle" and positioning of the control number on the map, I therefore managed to completely miss control 18 before the finish. Luckily I realised before download and popped back to gather the missing control, but by then it was about 3 minutes later! I reported this at download and enquiries but didn't get much interest (maybe fair enough as it was a bit of a daft mistake).
If only I'd broken through the hedge to punch, maybe I could have got that leg removed?
Liverpool Big Weekend
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Thanks SELOC, Routegadget (and thus Splitsbrowser) now up:
http://www.seloc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#66
http://www.seloc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#66
- PG
- light green
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: In the Peak
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Completely agree with yted. we need some governance in this sport. The contrast with the Fell Runners Association could not be more stark. The FRA has just banned a runner for nine months for joining in a race without entering and without wearing a number. In contrast we know that people break our rules but all we do is "tut" about it. I suspect that one ban for a few months would do a great deal "pour encourager les autres".
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
The difficulty is with differentiating between deliberate actions (e.g. running in a race without entering or wearing a number) and accidental mistakes. Crossing some OOB could be either.
A track runner who puts one foot out of lane would be dsq from that event but would not be banned for months. If they blatently pushed the runner in the next lane that would be a different matter.
To ban someone I think there would have to be clear evidence of deliberate breach.
e.g. a gap in a hedge with red/white tape across, a flower bed should be obvious, a wall which changes from "crossable" to "not crossable" on the map with no visible change on the ground less so.
A track runner who puts one foot out of lane would be dsq from that event but would not be banned for months. If they blatently pushed the runner in the next lane that would be a different matter.
To ban someone I think there would have to be clear evidence of deliberate breach.
e.g. a gap in a hedge with red/white tape across, a flower bed should be obvious, a wall which changes from "crossable" to "not crossable" on the map with no visible change on the ground less so.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
mykind wrote:The FRA has just banned a runner for nine months for joining in a race without entering and without wearing a number.
...because running a fell race without entering poses a serious safety risk to other competitors, which I don't believe applies to going through the gate in this instance.
Note also that the FRA have made it clear that they're unable to take action unless they first receive a complaint from the Race Organiser, even when there's photographic evidence of rules being broken. For all our faults, I think orienteering currently benefits from more consistent application and enforcement of the rules, and a relatively transparent complaint/protest/appeal procedure with escalation routes to controller, jury, and club/association/national committee for anyone who feels the rules have been applied wrongly or unfairly.
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
Scott wrote:mykind wrote:The FRA has just banned a runner for nine months for joining in a race without entering and without wearing a number.
...because running a fell race without entering poses a serious safety risk to other competitors, which I don't believe applies to going through the gate in this instance.
Note also that the FRA have made it clear that they're unable to take action unless they first receive a complaint from the Race Organiser, even when there's photographic evidence of rules being broken. For all our faults, I think orienteering currently benefits from more consistent application and enforcement of the rules, and a relatively transparent complaint/protest/appeal procedure with escalation routes to controller, jury, and club/association/national committee for anyone who feels the rules have been applied wrongly or unfairly.
It might be a serious issue in England but in Scotland the right of access allows anyone to run anywhere. So a runner can join a race, run alongside others runners with no risk of disqualification. They wouldn't get a time but no-one can stop them doing it. Personally I think its a bit sad to run along with a race without entering it but thats for others to decide themselves.
I also think its bit sad that FRA think this is appropriate behaviour - I think they are too far up their own ar*e.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
I think the FRA are understandably strict about anything that makes it harder for marshals to keep track of which (entered/registered) runners have come through a checkpoint, particularly in light of the coroner's findings in the Brian Belfield inquest.
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
Deliberate actions vs mistakes.
Mistakes can be accepted. I know there were a number of people who admitted this and self dqd. They should not be labelled as cheats.
Then there are the people who went that way because they could and feel it's OK. These are the cheats and dq is the only way to make them appreciate the rules. I spoke to one on Sunday and others at previous events.
Mistakes can be accepted. I know there were a number of people who admitted this and self dqd. They should not be labelled as cheats.
Then there are the people who went that way because they could and feel it's OK. These are the cheats and dq is the only way to make them appreciate the rules. I spoke to one on Sunday and others at previous events.
- DM
- brown
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:47 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Big Jon wrote:It might be a serious issue in England but in Scotland the right of access allows anyone to run anywhere. So a runner can join a race, run alongside others runners with no risk of disqualification. They wouldn't get a time but no-one can stop them doing it. Personally I think its a bit sad to run along with a race without entering it but thats for others to decide themselves. ...
The ban was for a breach of the rules, rather than illegal access, although the two might be related. Whether the rules apply to someone who hasn't entered is debateable! (FRA have "Runner" Rules that say you can't take part in any event you haven't entered - but not sure that BO have an equivalent?). And you can probably only effectively ban people who are already members in some way.
But where do you draw the line? Is it okay if a non-entrant puts their SI card through the check/start box? Or punches controls, but not necessarily finish/download? Or if they take a non-runner's entry, and perhaps their SI card, so organisers are potentially searching for (or informing the family of) the wrong person? Not saying the banned FRA runner did any of these, but possible. And at an orienteering event then taking a map and running a course - when in theory you could sue them for theft of a map, say for £1?
As DM says, deliberate cheats deserve action taken against them.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
How do you prove that someone has cheated deliberately? People may not realise they have done something illegal. Not everybody who participates is an experienced orienteer. I don't know exactly where I am 100% of the time. I am generally very careful (sometimes TOO careful) about not going out of bounds or crossing uncrossable features, but I have made mistakes. I disqualified myself after the last JK Long when I knew 100% that I entered an out-of-bounds area by mistake. But there have been cases where I was not 100% sure and decided to do nothing about it (it wouldn't have mattered much as I am nowhere near the top anyway). I am sure there have been cases where I simply did not notice it. I should also mention that for me personally, a constant fear of doing something illegal reduces my enjoyment of orienteering considerably, particularly in urban races. It is understood that mistakes lead to time loss, but when a mistake of the same severity leads to disqualification, this feels a bit unfair. Flower beds with actual flowers in them or two-metre-high walls are one thing; but if what looks like an ordinary lawn is for some reason out-of-bounds or there is a wide unmapped gap in a hedge, then it should be taped or marshalled whenever possible and this should be one of the top priorities of the organisers if they want to avoid disappointment, particularly among the newcomers. Finally, I support the decision to remove some legs from the results (though I am biased - I don't think I did anything illegal this time, but I made mistakes on some of those legs). It is understood that all maps are imperfect and this can lead to time loss; but disqualification resulting from what is effectively a map mistake (an open gate that is supposed to be closed) seems a bit harsh.
- MChub
- off string
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:43 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
I do feel that the current rules aren't really up tod ate enough to cover the current issues in Urban/Sprint orienteering.
"Simplification" is a recognised technique in sprint eg
I'm sure most of us do this and the faster you run the more important it becomes that the map matches what is on the ground. But what if there's an extra gate open before yours, or if the gate blocking the end of the T is open instead of closed and you run straight on instead?
So maybe I've gained an advantage inadvertently. I didnt deliberately cheat. Maybe I dont even realise till the end. Maybe lots of people have done it. Maybe some realised and went back. Its not really my fault is it? The map was wrong (yes I know its not the mappers fault either). In fact its not really entirely anybody's fault.
So what do we do about it. I've driven 200+ miles to the event to try and get points for a league. Cost me £200 for the weekend. SHould I just own up? If I do I'm getting DQ and no points at all. SHould I wait and see - after all its pretty unusualy for orgnaisers to DQ people. Maybe they'll void the leg....
or....
Rule X.1.2 Where there is a conflict between the map and the situation on the ground which affects the interpretation of the situation at speed and results in a competitor inadvertently gaining an advantage it shall be within the remit of the organiser to apply a suitable time penalty (say average time for the control x 2) to add to the competitiors overall time to allow them to remain competitive. This shall only apply to competitors who identify themselves to the orgnaiser as having done so on the day of the race. Anyone not doing so should be DQ.
I think this would incentivise people to self report and not over penalise people for what is effectively an error in the map.
"Simplification" is a recognised technique in sprint eg
take the next gate on the left, run to the very end of the path at a T junction and turn right
I'm sure most of us do this and the faster you run the more important it becomes that the map matches what is on the ground. But what if there's an extra gate open before yours, or if the gate blocking the end of the T is open instead of closed and you run straight on instead?
So maybe I've gained an advantage inadvertently. I didnt deliberately cheat. Maybe I dont even realise till the end. Maybe lots of people have done it. Maybe some realised and went back. Its not really my fault is it? The map was wrong (yes I know its not the mappers fault either). In fact its not really entirely anybody's fault.
So what do we do about it. I've driven 200+ miles to the event to try and get points for a league. Cost me £200 for the weekend. SHould I just own up? If I do I'm getting DQ and no points at all. SHould I wait and see - after all its pretty unusualy for orgnaisers to DQ people. Maybe they'll void the leg....
or....
Rule X.1.2 Where there is a conflict between the map and the situation on the ground which affects the interpretation of the situation at speed and results in a competitor inadvertently gaining an advantage it shall be within the remit of the organiser to apply a suitable time penalty (say average time for the control x 2) to add to the competitiors overall time to allow them to remain competitive. This shall only apply to competitors who identify themselves to the orgnaiser as having done so on the day of the race. Anyone not doing so should be DQ.
I think this would incentivise people to self report and not over penalise people for what is effectively an error in the map.
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: Liverpool Big Weekend
One thing I struggle with as a newcomer is the distinction between 'uncrossable' and 'do not cross'. I interpret the first as 'information' and the second as an 'instruction'. But on urban maps, the same symbols are used to depict these two (in my view very different) things.
My rule of thumb is 'if I wouldn't go across that under normal circumstances, I won't go across it when orienteering; if it's somewhere I would normally walk, it's fair game (unless there's an explicit instruction that it is not)'. That suffices for most situations, and means that things like not trampling through flowerbeds or over people's gardens are taken as read. It also means I make route choices based on my values and not just the shortest and/or quickest route. A recent event had a control on a path in a churchyard. I took a few extra seconds running along the path as for me that seemed more appropriate than running over people's graves; although there was nothing in 'the rules' preventing what appeared to be a popular option. Perhaps if I ever get to the stage where those couple of seconds are significant then I will think differently...
I didn't go to the Liverpool event so can't comment on the specifics. But I do wonder as a general principle if there is a way of distinguishing more clearly between features that ordinarily can't be crossed (at least not without turning orienteering into parkour), and those that are 'out of bounds'. Insisting that competitors don't respond to unexpected opportunities on the ground seems disingenuous. An unexpected open gate still requires someone to be aware of their position and to take a judgement on the desirability of following this alternative route, as does running through rather than around a mapped building that is no longer there. You've also got the issue that an unexpectedly locked gate forces a different route choice- if the logic is that you must act in accordance with the map, doesn't this then mean that competitors can (indeed should be expected to) climb over?
Perhaps instead of mapping gates as 'uncrossable' they should instead be mapped as open, but then an overprint 'X' added to remove any ambiguity whatsoever that this route cannot be used, even if available on the day? In the event that it is open, this may require a marshall to be in situ. If 'all maps have errors', how does a competitor know (in the heat of the race, not having consulted 27 different viewpoints over a cup of tea afterwards) which map errors should just be ignored, and which should be held as sacrosanct? Brandishing people as 'cheats' when they've made a split-second decision based on the dynamic environment, and with no intention of malice, doesn't seem quite right.
My rule of thumb is 'if I wouldn't go across that under normal circumstances, I won't go across it when orienteering; if it's somewhere I would normally walk, it's fair game (unless there's an explicit instruction that it is not)'. That suffices for most situations, and means that things like not trampling through flowerbeds or over people's gardens are taken as read. It also means I make route choices based on my values and not just the shortest and/or quickest route. A recent event had a control on a path in a churchyard. I took a few extra seconds running along the path as for me that seemed more appropriate than running over people's graves; although there was nothing in 'the rules' preventing what appeared to be a popular option. Perhaps if I ever get to the stage where those couple of seconds are significant then I will think differently...
I didn't go to the Liverpool event so can't comment on the specifics. But I do wonder as a general principle if there is a way of distinguishing more clearly between features that ordinarily can't be crossed (at least not without turning orienteering into parkour), and those that are 'out of bounds'. Insisting that competitors don't respond to unexpected opportunities on the ground seems disingenuous. An unexpected open gate still requires someone to be aware of their position and to take a judgement on the desirability of following this alternative route, as does running through rather than around a mapped building that is no longer there. You've also got the issue that an unexpectedly locked gate forces a different route choice- if the logic is that you must act in accordance with the map, doesn't this then mean that competitors can (indeed should be expected to) climb over?
Perhaps instead of mapping gates as 'uncrossable' they should instead be mapped as open, but then an overprint 'X' added to remove any ambiguity whatsoever that this route cannot be used, even if available on the day? In the event that it is open, this may require a marshall to be in situ. If 'all maps have errors', how does a competitor know (in the heat of the race, not having consulted 27 different viewpoints over a cup of tea afterwards) which map errors should just be ignored, and which should be held as sacrosanct? Brandishing people as 'cheats' when they've made a split-second decision based on the dynamic environment, and with no intention of malice, doesn't seem quite right.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
MChub wrote:Flower beds with actual flowers in them or two-metre-high walls are one thing; but if what looks like an ordinary lawn is for some reason out-of-bounds or there is a wide unmapped gap in a hedge, then it should be taped or marshalled whenever possible and this should be one of the top priorities of the organisers if they want to avoid disappointment, particularly among the newcomers.
And this is what [should] happens at all international races and it would be amazing to have this level of logistical effort put into every orienteering event but that simply isn't practical. Many clubs struggle to get enough volunteers to get an event organised and planned, at some point there needs to be an acceptance that mistakes are possible, everyone is out to have fun, the result of X-local league event Y really doesn't matter that much.
BUOT: Orienteering Opportunities for all students
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
facebook.com/British.Uni.Orienteering
-
Dave - brown
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 10:44 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
spitalfields wrote:One thing I struggle with as a newcomer is the distinction between 'uncrossable' and 'do not cross'. I interpret the first as 'information' and the second as an 'instruction'. But on urban maps, the same symbols are used to depict these two (in my view very different) things.
There, in a nutshell, is the problem. Too many people (not just newcomers, but also some that have been orienteering for many years) don't realise that on an ISSOM map uncrossable means do not cross. They are the same thing.
ISSOM 2006 wrote:To ensure fairness it has been decided that features which are mapped uncrossable (e.g. walls, fences, cliffs, water and hedges) are also forbidden to cross.
Somehow, we have to get the message across that in orienteering on an ISSOM map, the legality of where you can go without getting disqualified (or not, at some events ) is defined by what the map shows, and not by what you see on the ground, which may differ.
Hedges may have small gaps in them, fences may have open gates in them, walls may not seem high enough to be uncrossable - but if the map says they're uncrossable, then they must not be crossed.
Martin Ward, SYO (Chair) & SPOOK.
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
I'm a 1%er. Are you?
-
Spookster - god
- Posts: 2267
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 1:49 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests