At the recent BOK event in Thornbury, apparently some runners passed through an uncrossable fence using a gate that should have been closed (and was for much of the event) but was later opened. Initially they were marked as n/c - so effectively disqualified - but later, following a protest, reinstated and that leg voided. Yet on the preceding day's event, at UWE, some runners apparently took a route through a building that was not permitted, and were shown as n/c in the final results.
This all seems very inconsistent - I thought that crossing an uncrossable feature, even if there appears to be a way through, should always result in disqualification; certainly I've been disqualified for doing so in the past in very similar circumstances.
Disqualify runners or remove split?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
It sounds like...
Saturday: the map was correct and the same for everyone
Sunday: the map was wrong and some runners faced an additional challenge identifying the "open/mismapped" gate.
...even without knowing the details, there doesn't seem any inconsistency with treating those different circumstances differently.
Saturday: the map was correct and the same for everyone
Sunday: the map was wrong and some runners faced an additional challenge identifying the "open/mismapped" gate.
...even without knowing the details, there doesn't seem any inconsistency with treating those different circumstances differently.
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: Disqualify runners or remove split?
No, the map was correct - assuming it's where I think it is (based on a route posted on Routegadget), the gate was closed when I saw it and was mapped as such.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
Deliberately crossing a feature which is marked on the map as forbidden to cross should be DSQ.
The counter-arguments include:
* They didn't know it was forbidden [personally I think after a large number of years this should be well known by now; there is likely to be "forbidden symbols" clearly marked on the map and/or at registration / start lanes]
* A feature looked passable when marked as fobidden (gap in hedge, gate which is unlocked or even ajar) - the map says forbidden so it must be treated as such.
* We can't guarantee that we have caught all the guilty parties.
I recall one at Salford Quay where I glanced up from one control saw a clear route to my next control and ran; on the way I glanced at the map and saw that I was going down a dead-end ... but I could see the way through unhindered ... no - the map says fobidden ... so I stopped, turned round and ran round. Of course many went all the way round to start with and many others took my route and kept going (note that I didn't cross the "virtual fence"). What had happened was that a fence had been removed in the 2 days prior to the event.
Now in my opinion that should have been a removal of the leg, but the results stood.
The counter-arguments include:
* They didn't know it was forbidden [personally I think after a large number of years this should be well known by now; there is likely to be "forbidden symbols" clearly marked on the map and/or at registration / start lanes]
* A feature looked passable when marked as fobidden (gap in hedge, gate which is unlocked or even ajar) - the map says forbidden so it must be treated as such.
* We can't guarantee that we have caught all the guilty parties.
I recall one at Salford Quay where I glanced up from one control saw a clear route to my next control and ran; on the way I glanced at the map and saw that I was going down a dead-end ... but I could see the way through unhindered ... no - the map says fobidden ... so I stopped, turned round and ran round. Of course many went all the way round to start with and many others took my route and kept going (note that I didn't cross the "virtual fence"). What had happened was that a fence had been removed in the 2 days prior to the event.
Now in my opinion that should have been a removal of the leg, but the results stood.
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
I think the organisers probably made the right call - but the results should say "dsq" rather than "n/c" for anyone spotted rather than owning up. The two cases are different-
In one the building existed on the ground so competitors had no excuse that they did so inadvertently. Anyone who did so was obviously cheating so should be disqualified.
In the second case the uncrossable wall didn't exist on the ground - so runners did not cross an uncrossable feature - just somewhere on the ground that was mapped as such.
It does depend on context though. Had the building been demolished since the map was drawn, then competitors should not be disqualified for running across the patch of open where it used to stand. I guess the offending gate is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6119454,-2.5220095,3a,60y,148.95h,72.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siD8nkJOCggfGTRjACHhPiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If the gates were fully open like that then competitors could legitimiately fail to notice the barrier, but if one was closed and the other one ajar leaving a person sized gap it might be different.
In one the building existed on the ground so competitors had no excuse that they did so inadvertently. Anyone who did so was obviously cheating so should be disqualified.
In the second case the uncrossable wall didn't exist on the ground - so runners did not cross an uncrossable feature - just somewhere on the ground that was mapped as such.
It does depend on context though. Had the building been demolished since the map was drawn, then competitors should not be disqualified for running across the patch of open where it used to stand. I guess the offending gate is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6119454,-2.5220095,3a,60y,148.95h,72.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siD8nkJOCggfGTRjACHhPiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If the gates were fully open like that then competitors could legitimiately fail to notice the barrier, but if one was closed and the other one ajar leaving a person sized gap it might be different.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
I guess its difficult in Urban races but I think where a planner has planned a leg where it is critical that a closed gate stays closed or an open gate stays open, then the organiser should go so some lengths to ensure this stays the case, possibly to the point of stationing a marshall there.
We'd to hold then restart the sprint race at Falkland for Scottish Spring when we discovered that the curator had opened the incorrect gate.
We'd to hold then restart the sprint race at Falkland for Scottish Spring when we discovered that the curator had opened the incorrect gate.
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: Disqualify runners or remove split?
We have to learn a few new map symbols and colours also. I have been used to not entering olive green what ever the visible appearance that it could be entered. Two recent sprint events using the new map symbols had the fight colour for hedges, when in fact it was uncrossable. The first time I thought it was fight and went through a gap in the hedge, later realised and disqualified my self at download, the latter time I ran around three sides of a hedge to enter and leave for one control.
I was used to thinking differently for urban and sprint compared to terrain O, now I have got used to seeing errors or cheating at most events and having to let it pass as it is rarely acted on.
Even gps traces are not accurate- look at routegadget to see frequent overlaps of olive out of bounds.
I was used to thinking differently for urban and sprint compared to terrain O, now I have got used to seeing errors or cheating at most events and having to let it pass as it is rarely acted on.
Even gps traces are not accurate- look at routegadget to see frequent overlaps of olive out of bounds.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
canol wrote: using the new map symbols had the fight colour for hedges, when in fact it was uncrossable.
In the new ISSOM spec, they removed the "uncrossable" 50/50 black & green symbol and retained the 100% "fight" colour. ("impassable. Running speed is almost 0%"). and depending on which version you look at, it may also say "Impassable vegetation shall not be crossed".
https://orienteering.sport/iof/resources/mapping/
or it may not...
https://www.swiss-orienteering.ch/files ... 310118.pdf
and in any case, the new spec isn't required until 2020.
I appreciate that not everyone is as avid a reader of IoF documentation as I am, so if someone accidentally crosses some 100% green line I'm inclined not to think badly of them.
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: Disqualify runners or remove split?
canol wrote:WTwo recent sprint events using the new map symbols had the fight colour for hedges, when in fact it was uncrossable.
Unfortunately, the new standard has removed the black/green uncrossable veg symbol. We will have to wait for the next addition of the rules of orienteering to see whether green fight is included in the list of forbidden areas.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
There was a similar incident at the Imperial College Park Race a couple of weeks ago. For what it's worth, I think the organisers made the right call in voiding the leg rather than dsq-ing people at that one, given that a number of those cutting through the building were first-timer students who might not have had the relevant rule explained to them.
The splits do make it almost comically obvious who took the shortcut, and there are a couple of very experienced orienteers in there who I trust are feeling suitably sheepish.
The splits do make it almost comically obvious who took the shortcut, and there are a couple of very experienced orienteers in there who I trust are feeling suitably sheepish.
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: Disqualify runners or remove split?
My problem with removing the leg altogether is that it changed the results of other runners. In one case the winner of a course was moved down into second place. (neither the first nor second placed runners ran through the gate). So the winner was determined by a runner who went illegally through the gate. That surely can't be right. Can it?
- johno
- string
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:15 pm
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
Which is why we wrote section 7.10.3 in Appendix A of the rules shortly after electronic punching had become established in the UK.
Those basic principles are still valid for major races but never easy to apply for other races. Just trust in someone to make a sensible decision.
In light of recent developments
https://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1347634 it's also probably best to treat mispunches a bit more leniently than the rules dictate.
Those basic principles are still valid for major races but never easy to apply for other races. Just trust in someone to make a sensible decision.
In light of recent developments
https://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1347634 it's also probably best to treat mispunches a bit more leniently than the rules dictate.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Disqualify runners or remove split?
johno wrote:My problem with removing the leg altogether is that it changed the results of other runners. In one case the winner of a course was moved down into second place. (neither the first nor second placed runners ran through the gate). So the winner was determined by a runner who went illegally through the gate. That surely can't be right. Can it?
Definitely agree with Johno's point. I have been a beneficiary of leg removal as might be expected when I can be found in the lower reaches of the results list and have sometimes moved up a few places when a leg has been removed.
I attach the control descriptions to my wrist on a sweat band and for any controls of doubt which have a pin punch I tend to punch my control descriptions, much easier than punching the map.
I have never had to examine the paper card on the back of Emit cards but is this one area of advantage compared to SI? Is the next step of progress going to be accurate trackers for all; only then can these issues be eliminated.
- canol
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:33 pm
- Location: In the middle
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 146 guests