Lost for words

[Ant Jones]

Orienteering is an amateur sport which is run by volunteers who are all human - therefore mistakes are going to happen - they shouldn't but they will - as Greame says we should have a valid debate about how to handle for it when they are made.

Therefore I think removing the control from the splits is a sensible action - that is the best compromise between the distortion of not voiding the course (and having devalued results) and the draconian measure of voiding the course (and wasting everybody's time).

This isn't going to 'let off' the controllers/planners for making a mistake as everyone will know there has been a cock-up (and there will be the usual vitriolic reaction on nopesport to highlight this) - however it's not going to penalise the runners who have spent lots of money going to an event to have it a completly wasted effort - nothing is going to put people off the sport quicker than wasted money (e.g. F1 in North America)

And don't give me that stuff about the control being in the wrong place would distract you and ruin the whole race - the mental aspect of orienteering/competing is all about handling distractions and not letting it affect you (e.g. catching people up, hearing the tannoy, spectator controls, etc.).

The thing I'm not sure about it to what level this compromise should be applied (rather than the draconian voiding). I am of the opinion that this voiding of the leg should have been done at JK day one rather than voiding the whole course - but also understand the arguments about "flag ship" event. But for National events (C2?) and below reasonable sense should prevail.

In short - With SI/EMIT we have the technology to do this and therefore we should use it to minimise the impact of these mistakes.

[harry]

Second. I am fed up with trite comments about "the controls should be in the right place". Of course they should, but this doesn't help in deciding what to do when they aren't.

I was simply questioning whether people are actually still doing these four basic checks, taping, checking, hanging, checking (+ poss. pre-running)because if they are then there is no reason why a control should ever be in the wrong place.

I think the frequency is going up because I have been going to orienteering events for about 16 years and until recently the only time controls were ever in the wrong place was on junior training tours where controls are hung at speed and often not checked, even then, harshly, we all had a good laugh at the control hanger and they felt very embarrassed. It has always been very uncommon -to my memory- at actual events because of the tapes and controls all being double checked. Or maybe it's because I've just moved to scotland, surely standards aren't lower up here?

There have been enough times when splits have been taken out to know that you shouldn't give up. I don't think there should be a rule though. The rule should be "the controls will never be in the wrong place" you may think it's trite but it's so basic and essential to the sport. They don't accidently put the goalposts in the wrong place and later disallow the odd goal. Making a rule is like saying "well the controls should be in the right place but if you get a few wrong don't worry we'll just take out the splits."

[graeme]

"Voiding more courses and publicly embarrassing the volunteer planners/controllers will raise standards" discuss.

I used to play bridge to a decent standard, in the US and the UK. There was a marked difference in attitude.

In the US, people protested all the time, about hesitation, unorthodox bidding etc. etc. etc.
You would expect to be protested against most evenings, most protests were not upheld, but minor adjustments of scores for accidental hesitations were commonplace. There was no public embarrassment at receiving a protest.

In the UK, protesting was frowned upon. The consequence was a continual unpleasant muttering about cheating, unethical behaviour which was never substantiated. But anyone who dared to actually protest was reviled.

So of course, ethical standards in the US were much higher.

We need to reach a mature level where competitors and planners can feel comfortable about protests on the misplacement of a control. Because accidental
errors aren't going to go away.

Graeme

[Kitch]

Graeme wrote:

In your opinion -

and 80% of respondents

[Kitch]

it's so basic and essential to the sport."

Precisely why I worded the poll as I did.

relax on the principle of getting controls in the right place and you devalue the sport.
it just becomes mickey mouse stuff.

[awk]

I totally agree with Kitch. Once the point has been reached where one is seriously considering removing a control from the time, then the fundamental nature of the course and race has been altered. You cannot recreate the race - the misplaced control has introduced too many variables. The race should NOT be decided on how well a competitor deals with the mistake.

Accept the mistake is that serious, void the course, and go away and learn from it. In the meantime, certainly publish splits etc., but that's different.

[Guest]

i can't understand why controls should ever be in the wrong place. are people getting lazy? doesn't the planner tape all the sites prior to the event, then the controller checks all the tapes, the planner puts out the controls, the controller checks the controls. at a major event there should also be a couple of pre runners to check the elite courses but even before this point there are 4 opportunities for mistakes to be discovered and corrected. plus the fact that during the taping and hanging process the planner spends a bit of time checking he/she is right.

the frequency of controls being in the wrong place is increasing. why? i think when a control is in the wrong place the planner and controller should have to explain how this could possibly have happened.

I've never met a planner who doesn't tape controls, nor a controller who hasn't checked the tapes.

In my experience (planned and controlled 30+ events up to C2 standard - lots of mistakes, most of them unnoticed), errors generally happen in the morning rush - too little time, can't find the tape, put the control where you think it should be without the time to check accurately because you've another 30 to get out in 90 minutes or something like that. These type of mistakes will always happen and the best checking system in the world won't avoid them (people volunteering to pre-run would be great, but it never happens these days.

Void courses, but publish splits for C3s and above - but don't do this to publicly chastise the controller, organiser or planner. They are few enough in number as it is. For C4s and below, I don't think it really matters, though this is the type of event that is more likely to have newcomers running and they might appreciate a 'result' even if it is doctored slightly.

[Nails]

Second. I am fed up with trite comments about "the controls should be in the right place". Of course they should, but this doesn't help in deciding what to do when they aren't.

But Graeme, this should never happen. So in my opinion you shouldn't need a rule.
But of course in our world of rules and regs people like to have a fallback into the book.
If need to have a rule it needs to be serious, so that it never needs to get to the stage of actually being used...ie all control in the correct place...and therefore noone needs to employ it!

This should read- "If a control is found to be in the wrong place then all courses using this control should be voided."

Dunno if anyone can think of a major event where a control was moved by a non-orienteer, after the start, which was sited in the right place to start with?

[guessed]

Regarding everybody assuming someone else will have made a protest, and getting feedback to the planner/controller - why not have an array of 6 control boxes just before download. You could then vote with your SI Card/brick into
Great / Good / OK / Poor / Appalling / Complain

The software can then have a detailed breakdown by course and it takes away the worry of being the first to complain.

[graeme]

and 80% of respondents

That is interesting, because its way out of line with people I've spoken to, which is why I made the proposal in score that I did. The numbers in the nope poll are larger, despite which SOA/BOF see anything other than club committees as being unrepresentative (see letters in SCORE).

I dont like the wording of the poll - it confuses whether the bastardising issue is misplaced controls or taking out a leg. (Yes I know the difference between "and" and "or", and I also know how to write questionnaires to get the answer you want.)

The "right" i.e. neutral question is "Would you rather see a course voided or a leg-split removed"?

A separate, and interesting issue is whether there would be any difference on misplaced controls between the two options. I think the "leg-split removed" would bring out more protests and so is likely to be a bigger incentive.

Or maybe it's because I've just moved to scotland, surely standards aren't lower up here?

Competitors certainly go to the wrong place more often, so I guess its possible planners do too.

Graeme

[m4rk]

Dunno if anyone can think of a major event where a control was moved by a non-orienteer, after the start, which was sited in the right place to start with?

The JIRCs last year in scotland at gullane dunes (does that count as major?), a control was moved near the end of the M18 course about half way through, and then found and replaced near the end. As this was about control 24 of 27,the decision was made to simply end the course at the control before the misplaced control

[SIman]

The JIRCs last year in scotland at gullane dunes (does that count as major?), a control was moved near the end of the M18 course about half way through, and then found and replaced near the end.

... and then vandalised again. As far as we know it there is still a Tbar and SIunit in the buckthorn bushes somewhere.

[mharky]

I agree also. If a control is in the wrong place for whatever reason then the course should be voided, especially at important competitions like SOL [sarcasm]

With the regards to "significant amount of people" well 4 or 5 people was about half the field I think.

The control at SOL3 was maybe 2/3 of the way round, with a seriously intense last 1/3rd to come. It could have easily put you off, its bad news to be heading into that technical stuff muttering in your head what you think the control hanger is.

Personally I just dont understand how you get controlls in the wrong place. The control site was very easy, although I can understand the parallel error, I did it (although the control had just been replaced!). When I'm hanging controls I always double, tripple and quadruple check when I hang, I dont want to have to take the onslought of rage that would no doubt follow.

Another thing I noticed is that in the 2 events I with problems I have been to the event officials havn't really known how to deal with it. If its in the wrong place it's best to leave it, atleast its consistent for everyone. And similarly at the scottish they made some bizzare choices when putting a control in the wrong for map and wrong for description of a place.

end

[Guest]

Mharky wrote: If its in the wrong place it's best to leave it, atleast its consistent for everyone.

But surely not in every case ? If the first finisher reports a wrongly placed control near the end of his course, correcting it would fix the problem for the majority of the field. Is it better to leave it in the wrong place so that the error is 'fair' for everyone and the leg times can then be removed ? or should the planner move it to give everyone else a more enjoyable run ?

But then you get into the debate as to whether the leg times should still be removed or not, and the chnages this can make to the results of competitors who haven't been affected by the mistake at all ?

[MarkC]

At badge events and higher the organising team will all have put on events before

Not necessarily true - the first event that I organised (and indeed all four open events that I've ever organised or co-organised) were badge events, as were the first two serious events I planned...

I think that not expecting "such a high standard" at officials' first events is unnecessarily tolerant (if you mean excusing controls being put in the wrong place), since there is plenty of documentation (Rules and Guidelines, Course Planning handbook, etc.) available. If you read this, apply some common sense and take the advice of your more experienced counterpart (first time planners should not have first time controllers!) then putting on a fair event should not be a difficult task.