Who is through to the CSC final?

[fish]

Sorry Stew, but you might have to justify why the rest can't be deemed fair. Don't know if it is anything but talk at the moment.... but we can wait and see if they are published and what they look like.

Fair enough!
The main reason, for me, is that once this has happened the race has really changed - say someone loses 10minutes, well basically the race is over for them, any rhythm has gone, half the motivation etc, etc.Someone is lucky and finds it straight away has a completely different mind-set.

Perhaps - if there is a rule about this, then it might be easier for everyone to get on with there race more like normal (as they know what will happen to the results) but i'm not sure. Maybe it is just as unfair to leave the results as is - but everyone can look atthe split for that leg if they want and see what happened to who...

But it is also the precedent - where do we draw the line, how wrong does the control have to be to remove the two legs, 100m out, 50m out, just in an area of bad mapping. 1 person affected, 10%, everyone....

Ok - i don't find it that easy to explain the fairness...I just find the void or leave approach a much more simple decision. Playing with splits for results can head down a dangerous line (there is a story from Aus on that, but it's a slightly different issue).

[bendover]

even if there is a rule to say that the leg/two legs involved can be taken out - there is still the issue that those people who do make a miss on the control may have been running for 5/10/15+ minutes that they shouldn't have had to... so may then be more fatigued towards the end of the course than those who spiked it.

so it still aint fair.

[SIman]

At the Scottish 6 Day Event in 2003 we were worried that in one of the areas controls were at risk. We put the following in the programme.

In the event of a control site being removed by vandals, the controller may decided to base results on the time from start to the previous control or from the next control to the finish or, exceptionally, both of these, rather than void the course. You should continue to run as normal.

Fortunately we didn't have to do this (SportIdent's software doesn't offer it as an option).

[NeilC]

SO and SLOW through from SE/SC round. Impressive performances from SLOW's elite women but SO's strength in depth gave them a narrow victory.

[graeme]

ESOC and FVO were the only Scottish clubs to raise a full team, and duly qualified.

INT also scraped through by 3 points from TAY into the extra place created by FVO's success last year.

While neither INT nor TAY were allowed 13 scorers, several club stalwarts on both sides got points but didn't contribute to their club totals. In our (INT) case Paul Caban and Colin Eades had their points rejected because they were the wrong
age/sex. I didn't go but also couldn't have helped make up a team. Am I the only one who thought the CSC was meant to encourage those of us elderly people who can't make the clubs relay teams etc. to turn out for the club?

Graeme

[Guest]

But what about the wrong loose descriptions too?

Those that didn't pick them up for blue 1 or 2 didn't realise they were running a different course.

Those who did, arrived at the control circle and saw a control that appeared to be in the right place but was on the wrong feature with the wrong code (according to their loose descriptions). Maybe a smart person works out immediately whay has happened but I can assure you there were lots of not so smart people running round in circles wasting several minutes.

[redkite]

aany one know the Quantocks results.

Seemed to be some confusion re recorded start times producing negative run times! presumably still sorting this out.

[FatBoy]

Fortunately we didn't have to do this (SportIdent's software doesn't offer it as an option).

For anyone who's interested the software I'm working on now does allow it, but that's not necessarily as an interpretation of the rules. You could use it for a road crossing for example.

As to whether it's fair. No - all the arguments put forward make it unfair, but they do make it more fair than by leaving that leg in the total time IMO. Voiding the course is perhaps the only true way to make it "fair" but perhaps given it isn't JK or some really important race that a result is formed somehow. In this case what happens if (e.g) the Brown course is voided in this case. Is the whole CSC competition void or are the scores caluclated of just the other courses. If the former is true is it fair to make everyone travel again? If the latter is true is it fair if your club's best runners are on that course?

[JS]

Having been a Brown course competitor yesterday, there can only be two courses of action. The pre-and post offending control legs are removed from the splits or the whole trophy/cup competition is held at another suitable event... I think the control significantly disadvantaged a large amount of people particularly on the Brown as they came in to the control from above, whereas the Blue came from below. We've all made mistakes planning/etc but this was a long way out of position and it's correct position was easily recognised hence the amount of people looking for it!!! I only found it by mistake after deciding to continue after convincing myself I'd exhausted all options of finding it where it should be and that I'd been in the right place. As for LOC

[numbercruncher]

' However, there is talk of trying to remove the legs to and from that one and use the results that are produced. We'll see!!'.....


I've done this to the results, for my own entertainment. For most it makes little difference. The good orienteers are good on all the legs, not just the contentious ones. I ran Blue 2, and happened to spot 141 on my way to where I thought it should be. 'Correcting' the results for the legs into and out of the control made no difference to my position. There are, however, a few people for whom my 'massaging' of the results makes a huge difference.

The question of whether or not this is the 'right' thing to do remains open, but at least we can see whether it makes any difference.....

[numbercruncher]

Ooops - I ran Blue 1 (womens blue), not Blue 2. From my analysis, It looks like Blue 2 (mens blue) was most severely affected.

[Neil M37]

I think removing the before and after legs from the result sets a dangerous precedent (although I think it may have been done before, so maybe it doesn’t). If this sort of thing becomes common then it takes away the obligation to get the controls right in the first place – just see if anybody complains afterwards and remove the dodgy controls from the results. (To be honest I don’t think it would make any difference to the attitude of the planner/controller but it just seems a bit of a copout). Also it is open to abuse – if you realise a control is in the wrong place and is probably going to be treated in this way then you know that you can have a nice rest and a bit of a jog until the next control – and the time won’t be counted.

[Guest]

Interesting theory that 'good' orienteers find the controls whether or not they are in the right place.

The counter argument is that a good orienteer knows when they are in the right place particularly if it is at the top of a huge reentrant approached from a wall corner at the bottom.

It is then not unreasonable to assume that both planner and controller at a level 3 event couldn't possibly have got such an obvious site wrong. The logical assumption is then that the control must have fallen over and be buried in the snow somewhere near so the only thing to do is to spend time looking for it rather than running around in random directions. Or have I got my technique wrong?

Yes, you might guess that I lost quite a lot of time there.

[distracted]

Interesting theory that 'good' orienteers find the controls whether or not they are in the right place.

I know some who know they are in the right place, don't see the control there and so just miss it out and carry on with their run. Others do make the effort to look for a misplaced control, working out where it is likely to have been put instead. Perhaps that should be rephrased as "good orienteers don't waste a lot of time looking for a misplaced control".

It's always a difficult problem to deal with, and I would say the only solution truly fair to everyone would be to void the course. In this case, however, if removing the affected splits say, makes no difference to who qualifies then the results should stand.

It shows that even with all the cross-checking we still get it wrong occasionally - we are human after all.

[JS]

Agreeing with the previous Guest in that believing the controller/planner couldn't have hung the kite in the wrong place at such an event. Did the planner put this control out? Maybe not as even if the stake had been covered by snow they must've visited the site once or twice before and have still mistaken these two sites How? Given that this competition was also the CSC/T consideration must be given to the factor it had on individuals positions in the race results due to the obvious subsequent (team) result. Maybe work the Team results out on the massaged and unmassaged results and see if it makes a difference overall?
But that doesn't address the blue course control description fiasco...