Sorry I meant to add the leg to the original post so here it is- 23 to 24.
There was a gap in the fence just off the straight line route but most people would have gone via the gate in the SW corner of the map extract.
I don't think naming and shaming would be appropriate here since I believe most people would have made this mistake in error (and i believe the fence was only taken out for 2-3 hours while the local market was going on). However if you go on Routegadget for the course you will see at least one runner whose GPS track goes through the fence, like I myself did completely in error.
I just really wanted to show how easy it is to do, that people can disqualify themselves and that in the grand scheme of things, it is probably best to self-police.
Liverpool Big Weekend
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
- Attachments
-
- Leg 23 to 24
- 23 to 24.JPG (93.68 KiB) Viewed 10876 times
i dont sing my mothers tongue
-
Meat Market - green
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:10 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Meanwhile, back in Liverpool, a new set of results has been declared following an Appeal and Jury review. The legs originally removed either side of the control near the "open gate that should have been closed" have now been re-instated. But only for runners of course 5.
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
And now back to London...
So I deliberately ran through the very gap that MeatMarket mentioned, and I did not disqualify myself.
Now that you’ve recovered from the shock of this outrageous behaviour, let me explain why:
- I was last in a group of 4 runners, and they all went straight. I figured that most others would do the same and decided I didn’t want to be the only “goody two shoes” to run around - the gap was so blindingly obvious that no-one could say they didn’t see it.
- I think self Dsq is an excessive measure for this issue. For starters, only some people will do it so you end up feeling aggrieved about the ones that don’t. For another, I only gained 20s and in urban races you win some, you lose some. And finally, why not just remove the leg, particulary as it was a really straightforward one so very unlikely to affect the results.
I await a collective telling off.
So I deliberately ran through the very gap that MeatMarket mentioned, and I did not disqualify myself.
Now that you’ve recovered from the shock of this outrageous behaviour, let me explain why:
- I was last in a group of 4 runners, and they all went straight. I figured that most others would do the same and decided I didn’t want to be the only “goody two shoes” to run around - the gap was so blindingly obvious that no-one could say they didn’t see it.
- I think self Dsq is an excessive measure for this issue. For starters, only some people will do it so you end up feeling aggrieved about the ones that don’t. For another, I only gained 20s and in urban races you win some, you lose some. And finally, why not just remove the leg, particulary as it was a really straightforward one so very unlikely to affect the results.
I await a collective telling off.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
After just a cursory glance at the splits i can clearly see at least four runners who should be declaring themselves as non-competitive. I’m sure the more statistics-literate may spot more culprits. I wonder what will happen after the deadline if these folk dont declare.
-
HarryO - orange
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:52 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Arnold wrote:And now back to London...
So I deliberately ran through the very gap that MeatMarket mentioned, and I did not disqualify myself.
Now that you’ve recovered from the shock of this outrageous behaviour, let me explain why:
- I was last in a group of 4 runners, and they all went straight. I figured that most others would do the same and decided I didn’t want to be the only “goody two shoes” to run around - the gap was so blindingly obvious that no-one could say they didn’t see it.
- I think self Dsq is an excessive measure for this issue. For starters, only some people will do it so you end up feeling aggrieved about the ones that don’t. For another, I only gained 20s and in urban races you win some, you lose some. And finally, why not just remove the leg, particulary as it was a really straightforward one so very unlikely to affect the results.
I await a collective telling off.
Well as you know if youve read the thread I favour some sort of self disclosure and time penalty option in such cases rather than the various nuclear options of void course/void legs/DQ competitor. However thats really for cases where the offence was inadvertent rather than deliberate so IMO DQ is the right option for you Arnold.
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
Hasn't the Liverpool decision created a situation whereby the offending control is now considered fair on one course but not on another? The legs in and out are not identical but they're pretty similar and the open-gate issue is effectively the same on both courses.
The alteration seems to be making the whole thing messier than it already was.
The alteration seems to be making the whole thing messier than it already was.
- Blithe Spartan
- string
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:14 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Blithe Spartan wrote:Hasn't the Liverpool decision created a situation whereby the offending control is now considered fair on one course but not on another? The legs in and out are not identical but they're pretty similar and the open-gate issue is effectively the same on both courses.
The alteration seems to be making the whole thing messier than it already was.
Yes, probably. Perhaps the jury decided that the complainant could only complain about the results of the course they ran, so the jury only needed to amend the results of that course. Nobody complained about the results of courses 1 to 4, so they stand as originally declared.
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
Spookster wrote:Yes, probably. Perhaps the jury decided that the complainant could only complain about the results of the course they ran, so the jury only needed to amend the results of that course. Nobody complained about the results of courses 1 to 4, so they stand as originally declared.
Another unnecessary complication of the way orienteering deals with issues - it's only a problem if someone complains about it. In most sports the arbiter of what is right or wrong is a neutral person or "referee".
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
Another unnecessary complication of the way orienteering deals with issues
I would question why the organiser and controller in these situations can't police this themselves and make a decision on what needs to be done without the need for formal complaints and protests and calling in the jury. Just use some common sense (and voiding the leg for just one of the courses isn't).
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
andypat wrote:Another unnecessary complication of the way orienteering deals with issues - it's only a problem if someone complains about it. In most sports the arbiter of what is right or wrong is a neutral person or "referee".
I think if you had won your class at an event, and the organiser then manipulated the results so that someone else "won" you would probably feel justified in complaining about that decision.
On course 5N leg 2 looks to be a very good route choice leg that from routegadget https://www.seloc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#66&course=5&route=50219,221,50225,50228,232,236,50240,50248,258,50270,288,293
seems to have caught out most runners. The optimum legal route (by about 50m) is to turn back on yourself and go round the East side of the block - not even passing the open gate. (see Les Smithard's trace).
For other courses the optimum route is obvious - so will have been less decisive in the overall result.
So I can see how the organiser came to the original decision to void the leg, perhaps not realising the unintended consequences of seriously effecting the results of those making the correct route choice on a particular course. But I think the jury made the right call in reversing that decision for this course.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
The main job of the jury is to get the fairest possible result, which will depend on what people actually did. So it may be right to take out a leg on one course, but not on others (though it would be helpful to explain if that's why it was done). Note that the overall winner on course 5 is now marked as n/c (not DSQ).
Last edited by graeme on Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:57 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: Liverpool Big Weekend
So for the same leg in London:
Some people DO cross uncrossable features without realising it: being unable to read the map (poor eyesight), mislocating themselves on the map, struggling to keep up with a pack you know are on the same course, planning ahead, or just ignorance of the rules. But that doesn't mean that anyone should do it deliberately. If you see others doing it, why not call out to them that the feature is uncrossable or OOB? If they are never disqualified, some people will never learn.
As a competitor you have no definite way of knowing in advance why something is mapped as uncrossable, and so whether it is "okay" to use an unexpected gap. It could be a natural feature that is accidentally breached on the day (as here). But it could be a planning trap, or a dangerous area/drop on the other side, or a sensitive area that might jeopardise future permission.
At what point does "I only gained 20s" become unacceptable, and deliberate cheating? If you gain 30s? 1m? 3m?
Full marks to Meat Market for honesty. I applaud Arnold for owning up, but not for the deliberate cheating!
Meat Market wrote:… I realised that I had run through a thick black line literally as I punched control 24... This mistake probably gave me around 20 seconds. When I got to the download I insisted to my clubmates that I had made an error and should be disqualified.
Arnold wrote:I deliberately ran through the ... gap … and I did not disqualify myself.... I was last in a group of 4 runners, and they all went straight. I figured that most others would do the same and decided I didn’t want to be the only “goody two shoes” to run around - the gap was so blindingly obvious that no-one could say they didn’t see it..... I only gained 20s and in urban races you win some, you lose some.
Some people DO cross uncrossable features without realising it: being unable to read the map (poor eyesight), mislocating themselves on the map, struggling to keep up with a pack you know are on the same course, planning ahead, or just ignorance of the rules. But that doesn't mean that anyone should do it deliberately. If you see others doing it, why not call out to them that the feature is uncrossable or OOB? If they are never disqualified, some people will never learn.
As a competitor you have no definite way of knowing in advance why something is mapped as uncrossable, and so whether it is "okay" to use an unexpected gap. It could be a natural feature that is accidentally breached on the day (as here). But it could be a planning trap, or a dangerous area/drop on the other side, or a sensitive area that might jeopardise future permission.
At what point does "I only gained 20s" become unacceptable, and deliberate cheating? If you gain 30s? 1m? 3m?
Full marks to Meat Market for honesty. I applaud Arnold for owning up, but not for the deliberate cheating!
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
pete.owens wrote:I think if you had won your class at an event, and the organiser then manipulated the results so that someone else "won" you would probably feel justified in complaining about that decision.
Yes, absolutely.
And that's why I maintain that it's better not to remove legs from the results where most people ran the leg correctly, but instead remove the few people who did it wrong (whether accidentally or deliberately, and whether they are removed by volunteering themselves, or by the Organiser removing them!)
As far as I can see nobody on Course 1N has an impossible split time for the leg concerned, so nobody needs to complain and the results could have stood as they were, with the leg included. Anyway, time to move on...
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
While winsplits shows the persons position per control so I might on average be the 41st on each leg and finish the race in about 41st position this is not enough to highlight a cheat if for example I am in 10th position on one particular leg. I have a pace ( semi-plodding) but occasionally know where a control is if I have been to an area a few times and can speed up to reach it, then back to semi-plod for the next few controls.
I recently controlled a forest race and when route gadget went up someone downloaded their gps trace and had crossed a road more than 100m from the compulsory crossing point ( the leg was a dog leg unfortunately to use the crossing point for safety). Is gps accurate enough that this competitor could be dsq post race?
I have shouted to other competitors at races that they are in the out of bounds when seen. There are usually two responses- genuine mistake, maybe an apology and get out of oob asap, or a variety of swear words and just carries on cheating. I have given up raising this at events so if there was a definitive way of identifying transgressors I would be happy.
I recently controlled a forest race and when route gadget went up someone downloaded their gps trace and had crossed a road more than 100m from the compulsory crossing point ( the leg was a dog leg unfortunately to use the crossing point for safety). Is gps accurate enough that this competitor could be dsq post race?
I have shouted to other competitors at races that they are in the out of bounds when seen. There are usually two responses- genuine mistake, maybe an apology and get out of oob asap, or a variety of swear words and just carries on cheating. I have given up raising this at events so if there was a definitive way of identifying transgressors I would be happy.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
Re: Liverpool Big Weekend
Clearly what we need is an app, onto which a cutdown 'map' of forbidden areas and uncrossable features is loaded. When you transgress a shrill nagging voice shouts 'Back! Get back!' If only...
- dustytoo
- white
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:10 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests