Lost for words

[pyrat]

I agree with Graeme, if a course is NOT to be voided, time adjusting legs around the error control(s) is better than not doing so.

Adjusting should not replace voiding, although when the event is only semi-serious (eg. SOL) I dont think voiding is as important unless people have really f*cked up.

The JK however, was a joke and should definitely have been voided in my opinion. The course should be perfect, otherwise voiding should ensue with attitude.

[NeilC]

In my opinion the way to do it is for the planner and controller to visit all the sites TOGETHER, agree everything about the site including how high to hang it etc - making notes if memory isn't good. If the map seems dodgy then revise it, then revisit TOGETHER with the updated map.

I'm not a great fan of planner and controller visiting sites together (unless there is doubt about a site). I find that two people working together are not really independent and are more likely to miss something than two people visiting separately.

As for where exactly to hang a flag - take a flag and digitial camera round when taping.

[Kitch]

I'm not a great fan of planner and controller visiting sites together (unless there is doubt about a site).

I am reminded of the JK relays at Clumber Park
at the end of leg one about half a dozen runners went to the controller to say they thought one of the controlls was totally dodgy - before we'd even said which one the controller said
" ahh - I know exactly the one you mean " !!!!

FFS !!

if its in doubt - forget it,
put the control somewhere else - that is part of the controller's responsibility surely - to ensure a fair competition.

[FatBoy]

In my opinion the way to do it is for the planner and controller to visit all the sites TOGETHER, agree everything about the site including how high to hang it etc - making notes if memory isn't good. If the map seems dodgy then revise it, then revisit TOGETHER with the updated map.

I'm not a great fan of planner and controller visiting sites together (unless there is doubt about a site). I find that two people working together are not really independent and are more likely to miss something than two people visiting separately.

As for where exactly to hang a flag - take a flag and digitial camera round when taping.

I would advocate both parties having visited seperately before hand - certainly the planner should do this way before to ascertain the quality of the sites before wasting the controller's time.

However shouldn't at least our controllers be good enough to know they're in the right place when checking sites?

In my experience the best way to avoid cock-ups is to be ahead of schedule. Rush jobs are bound to cause problems. One example being the controller having to fine tune height and position of flags then not checking some enough because of lack of time. Save this hassle by agreeing in person in situ?

[Guest]

I totally agree with Kitch removing the splits is a really **** idea and is bastardising the sport. If you can find a single set of results (20+ people) where the finish order isn’t affected by removing 2 split time then I may reduce my **** to a really bad.

I really don’t see what they expect to achieve. The people who ran the course aren’t going to be taking the results seriously even with the removed splits. Surely they can’t possible believe this legitimises the results!!

[graeme]

I really don’t see what they expect to achieve.

Firstly, I think it the time wasted in "psychological damage" is much less than the time wasted wandering around looking for the wrong place. Hence taking the leg out is fairer than not doing so.

I can see the case for voiding, but the simple fact is that it seldom happens. People dont protest in the proper fashion - they just moan on nopesport, which is much more distressing for volunteers. When protests are made, courses aren't in fact voided (so then they dont bother next time). The usual outcome is that the results stand, and how well you do depends on how long you spent before arriving at the wrong place.

What I hope will happen (as trailed in my "bridge" analogy) is that if they're not calling for a course to be voided, competitors will be more willing to point out controls in the wrong place. Planners will be more willing to acknowledge the errors and all will learn from the experience.

What seems to be clear from this thread is that people don't think the current system (void or nothing) is helping to get controls in the right place. Which makes the lack of enthusiasm to try something else all the more mystifying.

Graeme

[Guest]

Graeme wrote: Which makes the lack of enthusiasm to try something else all the more mystifying.

I would put this down to concern over 'The Law of Unintended Consequences'. What seems like a good idea in theory often leads to all sorts of unforseen situations when it is put into practice.
The result is that the sport alters in ways which were never intended when the change was made, although the sorts of problem that will arise have been touched on in this thread.

[graeme]

Contributors to this thread will be glad to hear that removal of leg times was discussed by the BOF rules group in June. Their official position from the minutes is...

"No firm agreement was reached"

Not very helpful for competitors .

Anyway, it means discretion still lies with the controller. So if you find a control stolen or out of place, or if you hear of a problem before you start, you can't assume the course will be voided and you'd better keep on running.

I'm sure those of you with the tough attitudes to selection misfortune will have the mental fortitude to cope with that

Graeme

[Kitch]

I think thats a good decision.
Discretion should be with the controller as circumstances should dictate the action taken.

Its the same issue that surrounds the selections discussion.
The world is painted in shades of grey, very little is black and white