It's not newcomers that are the main worry though they should learn as quickly as possible all that may affect safety or future permissions. This is their responsibility and organisers should try to help as much as possible by specifically drawing attention to the key issues at each event.
But the main point is that if experienced orienteers do it by mistake, it is still their reponsibilty to disqualify themselves. Once we see the splits, we can see who has taken advantage of an open gate or climbed a fence or crossed an out of bounds area especially if the leg is an easy one and we have executed the legal route smoothly. They can see this too so they have no possible excuse for allowing their result to stand. As usual it's the cover-up rather than the original error that is important.
Only if British Orienteering and British orienteers take this seriously will urban (it's mostly though not exclusively an issue for urban races) orienteering gain any respect... at the moment it has certainly lost mine. People will stop doing it (and newcomers will hear about the risk) if and only they are disqualified.
Otherwise the message is "run wherever you want".
Liverpool Big Weekend
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Spookster wrote: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.
So are you saying that it's fine for someone to climb over a locked gate that is mapped as open? And that people should be disqualified for running across an open space where the map depicts a temporary building that is no longer there? And, indeed, that it's perfectly fine for people to run across the middle of a graveyard if it's not mapped in lime green?
I ask this not to be antagonistic, but out of a genuine desire to understand the distinction between what I view as genuine cheating (i.e. people setting out with a clear intention to benefit from breaking either the spirit or the letter of the rules) and people innocently misinterpreting the map.
There seems (understandably) to be a particular problem with gates. I would be interested to know what wouldn't work with my suggestion of gates mapped as open but then marked 'X' as way of removing any ambiguity? I'm sure the comeback is that 'there isn't any ambiguity if it's marked as uncrossable', which is admittedly very clear and logical. But then if the solution to an unexpectedly locked gate is to direct people through a passable gap in a hedge marked as 'uncrossable', things get more complicated.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
yted wrote:It's not newcomers that are the main worry though they should learn as quickly as possible all that may affect safety or future permissions. This is their responsibility and organisers should try to help as much as possible by specifically drawing attention to the key issues at each event.
But the main point is that if experienced orienteers do it by mistake, it is still their reponsibilty to disqualify themselves. Once we see the splits, we can see who has taken advantage of an open gate or climbed a fence or crossed an out of bounds area especially if the leg is an easy one and we have executed the legal route smoothly. They can see this too so they have no possible excuse for allowing their result to stand. As usual it's the cover-up rather than the original error that is important.
Only if British Orienteering and British orienteers take this seriously will urban (it's mostly though not exclusively an issue for urban races) orienteering gain any respect... at the moment it has certainly lost mine. People will stop doing it (and newcomers will hear about the risk) if and only they are disqualified.
Otherwise the message is "run wherever you want".
Can't argue with most of that. I do still wonder if disqualification is an appropriate punishment for a genuine mistake- wouldn't (as others have suggested) a time penalty on the affected leg be a more proportionate response (and one more likely to encourage people to 'self-report', if an obvious transgression that is not self-reported results in disqualification)?
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
spitalfields wrote:So are you saying that it's fine for someone to climb over a locked gate that is mapped as open? And that people should be disqualified for running across an open space where the map depicts a temporary building that is no longer there? And, indeed, that it's perfectly fine for people to run across the middle of a graveyard if it's not mapped in lime green?
From the perspective of applying the rules of orienteering, then yes, all of those are fine.
There may be other arguments against those things (future permissions, etc), but if so, then they should be made clear in the event details, and preferably on the map.
In my mind, the outcomes in order to appropriateness for the issue at Liverpool where people ran through a gate (crossed a thick black line) and gained an advantage should have been:
1. disqualification of individuals (whether due to accidental rule infringement, or deliberate cheating) where it was clear they had an "impossible" split time
2. penalty time added to individuals' times (so that people who gained an advantage are penalised, if not disqualified)
3. remove the legs from the courses (because that penalises everyone who ran those legs well).
Unfortunately we ended up with 3.
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
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
In my mind, the outcomes in order to appropriateness for the issue ... where people ran through a gate (crossed a thick black line) and gained an advantage should have been:
1. disqualification of individuals (whether due to accidental rule infringement, or deliberate cheating) where it was clear they had an "impossible" split time
2. penalty time added to individuals' times (so that people who gained an advantage are penalised, if not disqualified)
3. remove the legs from the courses (because that penalises everyone who ran those legs well).
I think this is the most appropriate in all cases where the leg time is sufficiently different that it is obvious who has transgressed. But unfortunately this isn't always the case, so we often end up with 3.
I once controlled an event where it was obvious, and advised that 1 would be appropriate. But the organiser(/club) decided to 2 apply instead, because (a) it didn't future permissions, as a "helpful" resident had deliberately unlocked a gate, and (b) they didn't want to adversely impact the reputation of their event! (There is no mechanism for the controller to appeal against a decision of the organiser!)
As to why this seems to happen more frequently than we might expect, from talking to competitors at various urban events the accidental errors often arise because middle-aged competitors can't read the map clearly. They are failing to recognise their deteriorating eyesight and use appropriate correction.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Snail wrote: (There is no mechanism for the controller to appeal against a decision of the organiser!)
Of course there is. If you put the original complaint in, you can appeal as normal. If not, you need to raise another complaint, but assuming you're already "inside" the process you probably know how it will go.BOF rules wrote:Any competitor or official is permitted to lodge a ‘complaint’
I'm a big fan of complaints by officials. It's very difficult for a competitor to raise an issue without being labelled "unsporting" or even a "cheat", or being bullied into withdrawing the complaint (the existence of which prevented others from doing raising the same issue). When there's muttering in the carpark, it's better for a disinterested official to raise the issue and invite the organiser to justify it. This is especially true if juniors are involved.
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: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
graeme wrote:I'm a big fan of complaints by officials. It's very difficult for a competitor to raise an issue without being labelled "unsporting" or even a "cheat", or being bullied into withdrawing the complaint (the existence of which prevented others from doing raising the same issue). When there's muttering in the carpark, it's better for a disinterested official to raise the issue and invite the organiser to justify it. This is especially true if juniors are involved.
So is an event Organiser within their rights to publish altered results, without their having first been a complaint?
Was a complaint raised by anyone at Liverpool?
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
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Snail wrote:In my mind, the outcomes in order to appropriateness for the issue ... where people ran through a gate (crossed a thick black line) and gained an advantage should have been:
1. disqualification of individuals (whether due to accidental rule infringement, or deliberate cheating) where it was clear they had an "impossible" split time
2. penalty time added to individuals' times (so that people who gained an advantage are penalised, if not disqualified)
3. remove the legs from the courses (because that penalises everyone who ran those legs well).
I think this is the most appropriate in all cases where the leg time is sufficiently different that it is obvious who has transgressed. But unfortunately this isn't always the case, so we often end up with 3.
I once controlled an event where it was obvious, and advised that 1 would be appropriate. But the organiser(/club) decided to 2 apply instead, because (a) it didn't future permissions, as a "helpful" resident had deliberately unlocked a gate, and (b) they didn't want to adversely impact the reputation of their event! (There is no mechanism for the controller to appeal against a decision of the organiser!)
As to why this seems to happen more frequently than we might expect, from talking to competitors at various urban events the accidental errors often arise because middle-aged competitors can't read the map clearly. They are failing to recognise their deteriorating eyesight and use appropriate correction.
Just to be clear - is option 2 within the rules to do? I thought it wasn't.
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
Spookster wrote:So is an event Organiser within their rights to publish altered results, without their having first been a complaint?
Yes, it happens all the time we issue preliminary results asap and then later some tidied up results.
I agree with your analysis of the 3 options, though a strict reading of the rules would suggest voiding the whole thing (I'd rate that an even worse option).
I have done the same, DQ'ing based on times (back when it was controllers who took the flak;)
http://www.rstrain.ndtilda.co.uk/results_08/euoc/
Nobody asked to be reinstated.
You'll see did also take a leg out, for the reverse of the Liverpool problem, when someone locked a gate mapped as open.
With the benefit of 10 year more experience, I still think we did the right thing.
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: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
andypat wrote:Just to be clear - is option 2 within the rules to do? I thought it wasn't.
It's not. Specifically, the only reference to adding penalty times (time adjustments)seems to be in the Jury Responsibility part of the BO Rules (my italics):-
Rule 5.2.6 wrote:Individual problem – the jury has to decide whether there has been a problem that has affected an individual but not the overall race. If they agree then they have to make a recommendation for that individual eg disqualify, reinstate. Estimated time adjustments should not be made.
Trying to introduce such a rule opens a can of worms. For example, how big should the penalty be and who decides this? If the same illegal shortcut affects both M21 and W70, should the penalty be the same for both even though times saved will be very different? etc etc
I think this "correction" should be left well alone!
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
DJM wrote: how big should the penalty be ...
There are very good algorithms in, e.g., winsplits to determine how long an individual would take on a leg. In some cases (not here) this is the right thing to do: e.g. when a runner sees someone stealing a control, chases them down, reinstates the control and continues with their run, a time adjustment is only fair. But it shouldn't be left to the jury to make up a number when they already know have that number will affect the final result.
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: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
graeme wrote:DJM wrote: how big should the penalty be ...
There are very good algorithms in, e.g., winsplits to determine how long an individual would take on a leg.
It's not. Specifically, the only reference to adding penalty times (time adjustments)seems to be in the Jury Responsibility part of the BO Rules (my italics):-
Rule 5.2.6 wrote:Individual problem – the jury has to decide whether there has been a problem that has affected an individual but not the overall race. If they agree then they have to make a recommendation for that individual eg disqualify, reinstate. Estimated time adjustments should not be made.
DJM wrote:
Trying to introduce such a rule opens a can of worms. For example, how big should the penalty be and who decides this? If the same illegal shortcut affects both M21 and W70, should the penalty be the same for both even though times saved will be very different? etc etc
I think this "correction" should be left well alone!
Yeah but remember we're not trying to estimate how long an individual would have taken had they gone the right route in order to correct their time. They have done wrong, but in a situation where its not whollly their fault. I'm not condoning it I'm just looking for a waqy forward that doesnt rtesult in us still talking about this in another 10 years time....
It doesnt even really ahve to be a time penalty. Just sufficient to ensure it affects the result but not necessarily as severe as a DQ. What about a 10 place penalty? 5 minutes or the longest legal time taken for the control? The current situation is just laughable where we get legs removed and no penalty.
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
Spookster wrote:spitalfields wrote:So are you saying that it's fine for someone to climb over a locked gate that is mapped as open? And that people should be disqualified for running across an open space where the map depicts a temporary building that is no longer there? And, indeed, that it's perfectly fine for people to run across the middle of a graveyard if it's not mapped in lime green?
From the perspective of applying the rules of orienteering, then yes, all of those are fine.
And are you happy that's the case? Personally I find it deeply troubling that the rules of orienteering 'reward' those who indulge in antisocial and/or reckless behaviour, but brands as a 'cheat' someone who fails to run around the outside of a non-existent building... Perhaps this is part of the reason for some officials and BOF being seemingly reluctant to enforce some rules, and perhaps means the rules need revising.
A local tennis court has a path running down the side. Currently this is flooded, and the gates of the tennis court opened to create a temporary alternative route. If this was on a course, the 'rules of orienteering' would require every competitor who used this diversion to be disqualified, whilst taking no action against those who ignore the warning signs on the ground and put their own safety at risk by taking the only route permitted by the map.
Let's say this situation was known about, and instructions given in the start lane to cross the tennis court. This is late in the course, and earlier on a competitor encounters an unexpected open gate. Remembering the core message received in the start lane, but struggling to remember the details, the competitor concludes that this must be the 'map error' they were told about. A mistake for which the rules of orienteering state they must be disqualified. This doesn't seem to me to be a situation that generates respect for the rules. I can imagine that most officials would be reluctant to impose this punishment, given that their own approach to giving instructions was a contributing factor to the mistake. If the rules don't allow for a fair resolution (both to the competitor who made the innocent mistake, and to others who didn't) then they probably need an urgent review.
Urban environments are very dynamic, and perhaps the rules should be revised to recognise that, both to ensure fair competition and the reputation of the sport. If there is no rule about 'acting like a decent human being' then imo there should be.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
spitalfields wrote: If there is no rule about 'acting like a decent human being' then imo there should be.
Many of us aim to comply with this rule
6.1 The spirit of fairness and good fellowship is to be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport,including the interpretation of these Rules.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
NeilC wrote:spitalfields wrote: If there is no rule about 'acting like a decent human being' then imo there should be.
Many of us aim to comply with this rule
6.1 The spirit of fairness and good fellowship is to be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport,including the interpretation of these Rules.
That's good, but is about internal good faith. In urban environments, I would like to see an expectation that competitors act in a way that protects and enhances the reputation of the sport among the wider population. For example, extending the expectation of assisting an injured competitor to an expectation of assisting with emergency situations encountered during a race. Or to avoid any route choices that may cause alarm or distress to members of the public, regardless of whether or not the route choice is technically compliant with the rules.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests