Chiltern Challenge

[Paulo]

Today's Chiltern Challenge at Bradenham was a very enjoyable event (nice to have the run-in in the assembley area for once!), good tough courses and a generally nice runnable area. Unfortunately for some of the early runners their run will have been affected by a control being stolen overnight, which affected courses 1,2,3 & 5. Results (on Emit website) include the following comments:

"The BOF Rules Group policy in these circumstances is to void the affected courses. This option, together with removing the affected control from the course result, were considered during the course of the day. After much deliberation by the main event officials, some members of the jury and the BOF Rules Group Chairman, it has been decided to allow the results to stand for all purposes. In reaching this decision, it was acknowledged that 177 people were unaffected by the theft and it was felt that people would prefer to be able to compare their times for the unaffected parts of the course, and get some ranking points, rather than have the whole thing voided. "

Strikes me as a bit odd that they haven't just eliminated the legs before and after the affected control, given the technology is there to do that. This has certainly happened before in similar circumstances in the past (happened to me at the November Classic a few years ago). Some of the affected people clearly lost significant amounts of time here, and although they have a '*' in their name next to the results to show this, wouldn't it be fairer, if the courses aren't to be voided, just to eliminate these legs?

I'm sure nobody would want the courses to voided (OK it may different at a JK or British say, but not just a Regional event), so why not just eliminate the 2 legs, which (at least on course 1) were very short legs anyway so would have little bearing on overall results except being fair for those affected competitors (not that I was one). Or is this approach no longer allowed under BOF policy?

[guest]

Today's Chiltern Challenge ......

....allowed under BOF policy?

I am sure the competitors affected would not be v. happy with this as it is no longer a level playing field. This will result in the affected competitors getting lower ranking points and will therefore reduce their average score (more so for those who do not do many events)- this will then affect scoring at future regional events. On the flip side one would expect those who were unaffected to have slightly higher scores, which again, could affect scoring in future events.

As previous poster states, easiest thing would be to void the problematic legs so at least it is fairer.

On another note, why do a lot of clubs post results on the day of the event, whilst the ranking scores are not posted until several weeks later (one event I'd been to took three months!) - are there valid reasons?? (just a general observation - nothing to do with the Chiltern C.!)

[Homer]

Haven't we had this debate before?

Many reasons why it might not be fair just to remove the leg either side of the missing control. What's to stop someone cheating, once they realise that there is something wrong and that there will, in effect, be a time-out in the middle of the course? They could do the rest of the course at walking pace, check out the fastest routes, the technical bits, etc. all without punching, then go back and race the rest of the course. I'm sure there's plenty more reasons.

I'll be interested to hear why the BOF Technical Committee Chairman agreed to the exception in this case.

[guest]

Haven't we had this debate before?

Many reasons why it might not be fair just to remove the leg either side of the missing control. What's to stop someone cheating, once they realise that there is something wrong and that there will, in effect, be a time-out in the middle of the course? They could do the rest of the course at walking pace, check out the fastest routes, the technical bits, etc. all without punching, then go back and race the rest of the course. I'm sure there's plenty more reasons.

I'll be interested to hear why the BOF Technical Committee Chairman agreed to the exception in this case.

In which case the fairest outcome for all would be to void the course!

[HOCOLITE]

I was at the event yesterday, not personally affected by the problem but other half did one of the courses affected.He would be very disappointed if the courses were voided but would understand if the afected legs were removed. Certainly we had no idea of the problem before we started. This is always going to be a catch 22 situation. However as stated the event was not a selection race or JK ..... thus I feel the officials have probably weighed the situation up and come out with a result that is acceptable to most. Essentially everyone affected is a victim of the prangster or thief whatever. It's unusual for the tape to go as well, definitely sounds like a killjoy.

[Paulo]

Many reasons why it might not be fair just to remove the leg either side of the missing control. What's to stop someone cheating, once they realise that there is something wrong and that there will, in effect, be a time-out in the middle of the course? They could do the rest of the course at walking pace, check out the fastest routes, the technical bits, etc. all without punching, then go back and race the rest of the course. I'm sure there's plenty

A quick check down the splits could verify that no-one went to any such extremes, even if they did happen to be aware of the missing control and which one it was. Given the uncertainty of what would actually happen, I'm sure no-one would have even thought about it (and if they did, it would have shown up in the splits). It just seems fairer for all concerned that if the courses are not to be voided, which we want to avoid, then cancelling out those legs - seems like it would give a fairer overall reflection of times, particularly for the people who lost 10 mins on the affected control. It's obviously not an ideal situation, but I'd rather have relatively fair results on a very slightly truncated course, than unfair ones (for some people)on the full course.

[Paulo]

Just noticed that the comments on the results website have changed to say "The BOF Rules Group policy in these circumstances is not to remove the split times from the legs affected. This option was considered during the course of the day." So be it...

[Jon Brooke]

Just as a matter of interest, would it have been control 113 (20 on 21L), which I thought was in the wrong place (In the circle, but not as described) when I got there at about 12.15?

[eagh]

It was control 153 - on a boulder (which was actually in a line of what looked like old concrete bases) and very obvious on the ground.

Thanks by the way to the person who, I understand, gave up his run to go back to the start and report the problem. I started at 10.45 and there was a replacement by the time I got to the control. (Did anyone else have a momentary double take as the readout on the emit block did not match the code on the control? this is a slight problem with replacing emit controls.)

[Jon Brooke]

They really were boulders. V rare kind called "puddlestone", which does look a bit like concrete.

[guest]

They really were boulders. V rare kind called "puddlestone", which does look a bit like concrete.

I thought they were puddingstones?

[Jon Brooke]

Yes, that's what I meant - ta

[mikey]

They really were boulders. V rare kind called "puddlestone", which does look a bit like concrete.

I thought they were puddingstones?

More about puddingstone here

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=10795