Event Standards Revisited

[awk]

One of the problems with getting more controllers has been highlighted on this thread andhas certainly reduced my involvement as a controller: the organisational requirement for controllers. At higher levels, should there be separate controllers for organising and planning? I know that I'm far better 'qualified' to control the planning of a high level event than the organising, but I'm sure there are others with the opposite. I asked to be downgraded to grade 3 solely because of these requirements, but would be prepared to qualify up to grade 1 if focused on planning.

I also believe this is a classic example of the mistake of assuming experience represents ability - require the controller to have planned/organised, but no requirement for them to have made a good job of it!

[Guest]

In the West Midlands we have a Controller who is 18. She came to the conclusion that she wasn't going to be an 'Elite' so she'd give something back to the sport. Shes a coach, and qualified Organiser, Planner and Controller. I'm not sure what levels she's at, but she's certainly taken the bull by the horns.


Hocolite

[Boo]

Do you have to have planned your 3 events before the day controllers course? I know that the South East is thinking about organising a day in early Oct, and I'm quite interested in going, but haven't planned a level 4 yet.

(Suspect I have just volunteered myself for planning duties soon )

[graeme]

Gross,

1. You are right - the proposal will come from SOA executive through next edition of score. Feel free to argue your case - plenty of people agree with you so its not a done-deal.

2. SOL has always had its own rules and guidelines
(we would probably agree thats daft - but your post shows exactly why its so hard to change).

3. As a senior controller, you no doubt know that
we're proposing clarifying the application of BOF guideline I2.7.4 so that athletes know where they stand rather than "changing BOF rules".

4. The 2005 AGM agreed that the SOA competitions coordinator is able to accept proposed variations of guidelines (not rules) if requested by the organisers. The CC has a duty to support (or start a process of overturning) controllers decisions. e.g. this year we adjusted SOL1 to have proper length junior-elite courses for FCC, and I support GRAMP's decision to cut the leg from Achlean.

Graeme

[FatBoy]

Is enough use made of Planner's or Controller's Assistants and could this be formalised more?

Speaking as somebody who's done both, mainly due to having a younger pair of legs than said Planner or Controller I think these are worthwhile jobs for events - particularly on larger areas where covering the ground to double check everything when you're M/W50+ is a daunting task.

Look at it this way - if you've got an experienced M/W21/35 helping at your big event - would they be better manning the orange squash or making double sure the controls are in the right place? I know that's simpified the situation somewhat, but illustrates the point.

[NeilC]

Do you have to have planned your 3 events before the day controllers course? I know that the South East is thinking about organising a day in early Oct, and I'm quite interested in going, but haven't planned a level 4 yet.

Not at all Ali. These courses provide an excellent training in how best to set about planning your first main event.

[Neil M35]

Look at it this way - if you've got an experienced M/W21/35 helping at your big event - would they be better manning the orange squash or making double sure the controls are in the right place? I know that's simpified the situation somewhat, but illustrates the point.

I agree - the more people checking the better - but it could come down to a clash of egos. Is the experienced MW21/35 an assistant or a consultant? Are they brought in to assess the suitability of control sites at the start of the process or just as a final check at the end? My guess is that planners who think they know what they are doing would resent being told that they are wrong - and we have already had one case quoted where the planner overruled the controller's decision. Of course it should be the other way round - the controller has the authority to overrule the planner - but the planner's assistant has no authority at all.

[stodge]

A bit x-thread this but is most relevant here..

My guess is that planners who think they know what they are doing would resent being told that they are wrong

I think this is one of the general problems be it planners, controllers or organisers.

eg WM relays, Scottish Champs, JK Day1 etc etc

Most planners, controllers, organisers comments when there has been a problem, for everything from running out of water at the finish to controls being in the wrong place, always seem to say sorry BUT and then excuse, excuse, excuse...

Some people (not all) seem to find it difficult to hold up their hands and say sorry I/we cocked up, got it wrong etc - I/we will try to learn from it and encourage others to also learn from it.

[JS]

Interesting point on overriding decisions, I planned a district event last year (by no means my first) and allowed the Controller (who by chance was also the mapper) to overide me on two control sites, even though I was 100% sure I was right...and post run comment indicated I was correct. So no one should be under the impression that the controller is always right...

[Guest]

JS wroites : 'the Controller (who by chance was also the mapper)'

Another golden rule to add to the list - the mapper should never be allowed to be the either the event planner or controller. Over-familiarity with the area leads to mistakes.

[Neil M35]

no one should be under the impression that the controller is always right...

Indeed not, but then the planner isn't always right either and you certainly shouldn't trust any experienced M35 who has volunteered to test run your courses. I would suggest that if you couldn't agree on the correct siting then you should have used a different control site that you could agree on - although admittedly in some areas and on some maps there might not be a lot of choice. If it's ambiguous, don't use it.

[graeme]

If it's ambiguous, don't use it.

This is one of my pet-hate quotes...

Obviously it is better not to use ambiguous sites, but on occasion you need to to set up/finish a good leg. Using "flag-in-forest" sites is fine provided you aren't interested in testing fine navigation (which obviously can't be done for such sites).

"If its ambiguous, hang the flag high."

Graeme

[Neil M35]

"If its ambiguous, hang the flag high."

Graeme

So a disagreement between planner and controller results (possibly) in the control being in the wrong place. Applying Graeme's rule we have the control hung nice and high but it's still in the wrong place - 1 competitor protests, the jury has no choice but to void the course.

[Ed]

I think there's possibly 4 sorts of ambiguous feature:

1. it's in the right place, but whether or not it constitutes a feature is ambiguous (the very shallow re-entrant and the (in)distinct vegetation boundary are possibly the canonical examples of this)

2. it's a feature, but it's ambiguous as to whether it is shown in the right place on the map (e.g. the bingo pit)

3. it's a feature, but it's ambiguous as to whether it is mapped correctly/clearly (e.g. is it a crag or a boulder?)

4. it's a feature, but it's ambiguous as to whether it is the correct one/the one shown on the map (e.g. the pit in a pitted area)

1 & 3 may be acceptable as control sites, assuming there is no suitable alternative nearby and there is a real necessity for a control in that area (although in the case of #3 the map should preferably be tweaked). Using either 2 or 4 as control sites is asking for trouble (a la JK 2005), even allowing for being able to improve the map these kinds of features are still unreliable, and if a control site combines both 1 & 3 above then using it is also asking for trouble (a la BOC relay 2000).

[red adder]

The key to the mapper/planner/controller relationship in my view is openmindedness. As a reasonably experienced mapper/planner (about a dozen maps and twenty events, from local up to badge) I found it easiest to work with people who pleasantly explain their viewpoint and listen to your explanations of why you have mapped / planned the way you have. You can then agree the best course of action (and its certainly not always my view that prevails) [My personal bug-bears have been a couple of doctrinaire controllers who have either tried to plan the courses or who have blatently mis-interpretted rules and guidelines - I simply won't work with them again.]

I was lucky in that my first planning effort was controller by some-one of great tact and experience. The lessons I learnt then have been very valuable and still hold true 20 years later (suitably re-inforced by a partner who makes me read and stick to guidelines whenever "I know best" mode is on).


I think its OK for a mapper to plan on his own map - though a strong controller may be needed so you are not blinded by the brilliance of your survey. Independence may be better at C2 and upwards events.

Where we can miss out surely is that for major events the mapper should also validate that the control sites. I seem to recall that one of the catalogue of mis-placed controls from Neil "the mapper immediately knew the site protested against was wrong feasture". And if the mapper can't make an unambigous call on any site it shouldn't be used.