JK protest

[Tessa]

I was just wondering about the protest that was put in about the M45L course. A small summary of what they decided is on the website. Basically there was no control or even tape at one of the sites. It was replaced quite quickly, so only 12 or so runners were affected. I think the protest asked to remove just the legs either side of the control. But as that didnt affect the top 3, they decided to leave it.

I'm not having a go at the decision or anything, I can see that it would be a lot of hassle and cause disruption to the results. But I'm more just interested that in a 'sport for all' it seems to only be the top 3 that matter. I'm interested as for the complaint to be rejected by the planner, organiser, controller and jury there must be some logic behind it that im missing.

I wondered if anyone could shed any light on this - would it have been a real disruption to the results? Was it worth it if only 12 runners (and maybe not the top ones) were affected? An elite course would have been voided for this, so is it assumed that M45L's aren't as competitive?!

[mharky]

I think that that is a supid decision. If there was a control missing for 12 people then something should be done. No we have the electronic punching it would make sense to remove the splits either side, as was suggested my the complainant.

Just because the top 3 were not affected doesn't mean that there was not a problem. THERE WAS NO CONTROL!!!

I would be very interested to here from the people who made that decision why they thought it the correct course of action.

[Rookie]

agree Mharky, there was one person who didn't get that control just 4 mins down on third place on the day, and overall just a minute and a half down - so that missing control was irrelevant?

EDIT - OK removing the legs wouldn't actually change the podium positions (only just) but having a missing control would definitely affect someone for the rest of their course - they might be thinking they will be dsqd.

[guest]

I don't agree that deleting legs to fix problems on the day is acceptable. The race should be decided on the whole course and somebody could be unhappy if their best legs were deleted. Your choices are to let results stand or to void.

In this case, I understand it was an obvious control site that was vandalised so I guess the organisers felt that most people would go on without wasting much time. It was not an elite class and not affecting prizes, so just treat it as bad luck and get on with training for the next race.

[HOCOLITE]

Guest If you are an early runner on a top competition and you reach a control site and there is no tape or control, do you assume it's obviously been vandalised or do you look around. This event gives good ranking points. You get none for Disq, and if you've missed the site others might to, it's not unknown for a control to be misplaced. I heard that there was a policy was that if the control was more tha x% round the course the course should be terminated at the previous control rather than voided. Anyone else heard of this.
It is not fair or just to say hard luck mates you were early runners and not in top three so who cares.

[graeme]

It doesn't do any credit to the jury that their report doesn't quote which rules they're applying. I think the rules is that action should be taken if "a significant number of people were significantly affected" - the results suggest a few people lost 2-3 minutes, and nobody significantly slowed down/gave up afterwards so the decision would be defensible if they cited that rule (but they didn't...) . However, I can't find anything to support the jury's reasoning for rejecting the protest (didn't affect the podium) - it looks rather as if they made up any old excuse for the answer the organiser wanted to give.

Graeme

PS I very much doubt if the elite course would be voided if a control was missing for the first 10% of competitors.

[King Penguin]

Under Rule 9.4 the Jury's decision on a Protest can be appealed to "BOF Event Standards Committee" (though on the day I was told this should be to Chair of BOF Rules Group).
I am taking advantage of this option so no further comments on this issue here from me whilst it remains "sub judice"

[Adventure Racer]

I'm sure this discussion has been done before, and the conclusion was that you're not allowed / it's not fair to remove the legs either side of the control.

However: It seems you have three options 1) do nothing 2) void the course 3) remove the splits either side of the control. All of these options will be unfair to somebody, however personally I still feel that option 3 is the least unfair overall, as option 1 which was chosen is VERY unfair to those for whom the control was missing.

Then again, at least they haven't disqualified the people who didn't find the control! There seems to be a rule in trailquests that if the majority of people found a control even if it was misplaced that those who looked but didn't find it are penalised - in one UK adventure race last year this rule was applied and had a major affect on the results at the head of the field.

[guest]

As an early starter on the said course, and one affected by the missing control, I did lose some time and some impetus as a result.
After switching into 'controller' mode and double checking all available evidence, I came to the conclusion that it really was missing, and I wasn't just in the wrong place!. By this time there were four of us milling around.
I did actually consider running straight back to the finish to report, but it wasn't all that much shorter than completing the course.
It also did actually cross my mind as to how this may affect the Elite courses if they had to pass through that control, but I had it in the back of my mind that they were starting later so wouldn't get to that point until I'd finished and reported.
Would the jury's position have been any different if I had decided to retire to report the missing control?
CJW

[NeilC]

Current practice, at least at major events, is not to mess around with deleting legs, stopping races early etc. It could prove to be a slippery slope thereafter if such manipulations became common.

When to void and when not to void is a decision made more easily in front of a terminal than in a jury room.

Deciding to void when circumstances out of the control of the organisers effect the outcome is very difficult. No one would complain if the results of an event in which the first 20% of competitors had to run in thick fog were allowed to stand. Couldn't control vandalism be considered a similarly unfortunate circumstance?

We don't of course know the full story - presumably control and tag were in place at some point on the Sunday morning. Incidently I don't recall seeing any tags on Day 2 (unlike the tent pegs and notices on Day 1). Perhaps they were well hidden - at least I hope that they weren't removed before the race.

[Rhys]

Seeing as we're on about JK and protests here's another one.

A female racer mispunches on a control which is on a different feature to hers, yet gets reinstated after a protest. Why the chuff should she? The control was even taped - there's no excuse and it's unfair to reinstate them

[guest]

Sorry Rhys - the finer points of that havn't quite come over - could you explain it a bit more clearly - did she punch the wrong control or was it her control which was in the wrong place?

[guest]

She punched the wrong control

[Adventure Racer]

guest must be mad because she seems to be talking to herself.

[mharky]

Firstly, has it actually been declared that it was vandalism? I'm very impressed at how early the control vandals were out, and their thouroughness to take the tape as well...

Secondly, NeilC, bad weather and no controls are two different things. Of course it can not considered the same... if its foggy you can still go to a control, because it's there, but if it isn't there (like at the JK, which had no fog so I don't know why you even mention it) then you can't punch, because there is no control. There is the difference between and interference and an inhibition...