JK protest

[graeme]

I think you need a bit more detail Rhys, but in the meantime, here are some
reasons why I've seen people reinstated who punched the wrong control...

1. You also punched the right one.
2. Your control was missing/misplaced
3. You had the wrong control descriptions/no control descriptions
4. The control had the same code as one you were meant to visit.
5. You found a (misplaced) tape with the right number on it.
6. The two controls were close enough to be confusing (6.2.3 and 6.2.4 - controls shall not be sited within 30m of each other, or with 60m on features which appear similar in the terrain) - note "shall" not "should" for international events.

Note that 6 applies to features, not control sites (e.g. ditch end and ditch are the same feature) and on appearance in terrain, not representation on the map (so those Chiltern depression-knoll-rootstock are similar in the terrain - knoll W side should not be within 60m of rootstock E side).

Its not clear what the penalty for breaking the rules is, but reinstating one competitor seems better than voiding all the courses.

[PeterG]

But if the leg is removed when a control is found to be missing, it then stops being an inhibition and becomes an interference.

[guest]

Re NeilC's point above, I can confirm that we could find no tape at all in the vicinity of control 180 (the missing one) - obviously if one had been found with '180' written on it, I would have saved 3 or 4 minutes of double checking my location!
CJW

[mharky]

Which makes me think the control was NOT vadalised...

Peter>>> exactly, so you can use the results without the splits...

[bedders]

Re: Rhys's comment. Apparently at one of the taped controls at the JK for the road crossing, this person mispunched. This person visited the other road crossing control, which was 39m away when it should have been 40 (that contradicts Graeme's point that its a 30m distance between controls but this is just the story I heard). So as a result everyone who punched either of these wrong (can't imagine it was very many) was reinstated. Ridiculous? I think so

[guest]

In conversation with a jury member, he confirmed control 180 was vandalised - moved by someone after placement. Not all planners or controllers leave tapes in place during the event.

[guest]

Control description for the road crossing shows a taped route between the two controls either side of the road.
So simply follow the tape and punch the control at the end of it. There was no need to check the control code was there ?

[mharky]

Fair enough... I withdraw that statement

Lucky they left the tape at #173, depressions can by find to hard...

[guest]

Yes there was as there were 2 taped routes through the rhodies, 1 from each of the 2 controls before the road crossing

[graeme]

I got the 30m from the BOF site here...

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/a ... les1p0.pdf

...dated 2002, so it might now be 40m at IOF. Either way, it sounds like you're talking about the two controls in the same ditch at the end of the untimed leg. Ridiculous? I think so.

[[my username]]

Refering to the road crossing...
the reason i mispunched is because i assumed a road crossing meant a dead control
I wasn't the one who complained to the jury (i was just very annoyed with myself)
I think they decided in the end that the placing of the controls broke one or more rules and so reinstating people was the only alternative to voiding lots of courses

there was no easy solution to an incident like that and sorry if anyone was upset by the decision

[Simon E]

I got the 30m from the BOF site here...

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/a ... les1p0.pdf

...dated 2002, so it might now be 40m at IOF.

A few useful references to clear up the accumulated misinformation:

6.2.3 Controls should not be sited within 30 metres of each other. (See Appendix B for guidance.)

6.2.4 Controls within 60 metres of each other should not be positioned on similar features or on features that appear similar in the terrain. (See Appendix B for guidance.)

19.4 Controls shall not be sited within 30m of each other.

3.7 Rules 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 allow some flexibility in how close together controls can be sited. This should be used with caution (and not at all in World Ranking Events: IOF rules have "shall" not "should"): it must always be possible for a competitor to decide from the map which control to go to without needing to rely on the control code, and to do so quickly. If you are going to infringe either limit, you will need a good reason which you are able to justify to competitors. Remember also that it may be necessary to allow for a little drift in the positioning of the circle on the overprint, and that in a detailed part of the map there may be some distortion in order to fit the symbols into the space available – if in doubt, measure the distance on the ground.

There is usually little point in putting controls closer than 30m apart – competitors are, in effect, navigating to the same point. An exception might be e.g. when one control is on a point feature, used by a technical course, the other on a path junction on a yellow course.

The 60m limit will be breached more often, e.g. when two successive decision points come close together on a white course (but this will require the circles to overlap even at 1:10 000, so consider taking the course elsewhere particularly if the course is not being overprinted).

Be pessimistic when interpreting 'features which appear similar in the terrain', e.g. paths and rides are obvious ones not to mix, but some vegetation boundaries have faint paths along them (or develop them as an event takes place). 'Similar features' does not just mean those mapped with the same symbol: it is not fair, for instance, to use both a fence and a ruined fence. Neither is it acceptable to claim that e.g. 'boulder (2 m ) NE side' and ' boulder (1 m) SW side' are different: they are both boulders.

Other combinations to avoid include
- stream/ditch/linear marsh
- depression/pit/shallow re-entrant
- knoll/spur
- re-entrant/side of a spur
- re-entrant/a feature (e.g. a marsh) in a re-entrant

Essentially, do not use any close combination of controls which could be confused by competitors.

Note that the IOF rule is irrelevant to the JK unless the 21E classes are World Ranking Events. The JK is run under BOF Rules, even if it is described as an "International" event.

[mharky]

The 21E was a World Ranking Event, as it has been for a few years, and I guess for many years to come... but I guess it means that the IOF rules only apply to those 2 courses...

[Dave]

What has been annoying me recently is a few juniors who ask others [even people on their course that they have caught up] where they are then still finish top 3 and take the prize

[Mr timE]

Simon E has clarified the situation regarding distance between controls, but I will add that the recommendation from BOF to all controllers/planners is to try and stick to the 60m rule on all controls, then you avoid the problem, also surely it is the leg between the controls that really matters most, not where you "hide" the control.
On the subject of removing the leg before and after, this should not happen for any championships/major event, incl National events and only exceptionally should it happen in other events. In really difficult terrain someone could spend 10 mins looking and cover quite a distance, their concentration is shot and they could loose motivation. This will affect their performance for the remainder of the course, not just the 2 legs removed, is that fair to them. Alternatively someone arriving just as the pack decide it is missing, or an offficial replaces a control, may then have several other runners around them and get an unfair advantage for the remainder of a course. The first has happened to me, but unfortunately not the second, although I doubt I have the speed to take advantage of it.