JK protest

[Rookie]

so what would be the fair solution?

I'd say removing the legs would be the best option, or end the course and the previous control if it's almost the finish anyway

[Mr timE]

so what would be the fair solution?

I'd say removing the legs would be the best option, or end the course and the previous control if it's almost the finish anyway

2 ways it can go as I see it. All BOF can do is recommend the fairest way to cover all possible scenarios, but without knowing local factors, which has to be void the course, that's because it could affect qualifications, ranking points, trophies etc.

The other way is to rely on the event jury to call it based on all the local factors which they should know, but still bearing in mind the affect elsewhere etc. It could still be void course, or remove the legs, or let result stand, it comes down to orienteers deciding for ourselves what is best at the time.

Let's be practical about it and accept that whilst it may occassionally occur it won't be the same people affect all the time, ranking points are averages anyway, and in some ways it is no different from having a top runner pull you around a course, or arriving just as the pack find the bingo control. Unless it is a competition you can re-run elsewhere just accept it and move on.

[Roger]

I too went to the wrong control on the ditch (at an amble), but fortunately checked the code while I still had time in my permitted 2-minute time-out to get to the right one.

so what would be the fair solution?

I'd say removing the legs would be the best option, or end the course and the previous control if it's almost the finish anyway

In this case it was almost the end of the course, so ending the race at the start of the taped route would have been best.

In contrast, at February's Chiltern Challenge a control just before a road-crossing (about halfway round, #15 for me) was stolen overnight, was replaced quite early and the results stood -- presumably on the grounds of 'significance' (of number of competitors affected and of time lost). (Nopesport thread) I sympathise with the organiser, and agree with his decision in this case. However, had it been a JK I would have voided the course: the 'significance' argument in a slightly different guise.

For the Chiltern Challenge, removing the legs 14-15-16 would have disadvantaged me, because I'd spotted 16 on my way to the first control, so knew where it was and ran very hard up the hill to it. So in addition to the issue that failing to find a control can break concentration or cause extra distance to be run, 'information asymmetry' makes removing legs potentially unfair: people who know a control is missing would take the next leg easy, while people who get there after it's replaced / before it's stolen wouldn't get the rest.

The only 'live' legs left at the JK were to an obvious control in huge field with a very effective PA system in it, plus the run-in. Bin 'em.

[Simon E]

All BOF can do is recommend the fairest way to cover all possible scenarios, but without knowing local factors, which has to be void the course, that's because it could affect qualifications, ranking points, trophies etc.

BOF Technical Committee (by whatever name it happens to have: currently Rules Group) is responsible for producing and disseminating guidance on the interpretation of the rules. This is done via the various appendices and event guidelines, and by other channels such as Focus, training courses and via meeting minutes. This may well say "we think in general you shouldn't play with the times" but it remains guidance and no more. Local circumstances will always need to be taken into account, based on the famous rule 1.5.1 relating to fairness.

The other way is to rely on the event jury to call it based on all the local factors which they should know, but still bearing in mind the affect elsewhere etc. It could still be void course, or remove the legs, or let result stand, it comes down to orienteers deciding for ourselves what is best at the time.

This is not what should happen. The jury have no role to play in deciding how to deal with circumstances such as this until a number of other stages have been gone through:

1) Competitor discusses complaint with Organiser (rule 9.1.1).

2) Organiser, in consultation with other event officials as necessary, decides on suitable response (rule 9.1.4).

3) Competitor disagrees with Organiser's decision and makes a protest (rule 9.3.1).

At this point the jury get a go. There is then a final right of appeal against a jury decision (rule 9.4).

[graeme]

Back with the missing control protest.

It makes no sense to void a course which was correct for the majority of competitors. I don't imagine the protesters want that to happen.

Messing about with times when only a few are affected is problematic: if it had changed the leading results (e.g. if the winner and runner up had their positions reversed because of a problem that didn't affect either of them) I don't think a jury could take the leg out (as they would be deciding who should win). However, since this *isn't* the case, removing the splits primarily benefits those who were disadvantaged by the missing control (go look at the facts), the latter seems fairer.

In the US, they have another option: "sporting withdrawal". Under this, if the minority of competitors feel their run has been ruined by e.g. a missing control, they can withdraw from the competition (and, symbollically, they're offered their money back and usually decline). They get to choose whether their results appear with an explanation.

The Japanese WOC results included, for each leg, an estimate of how fast the runner would be expected to do the leg (based on their splits elsewhere and the splits on the leg). This is used to spot mistakes.

Looking through the Jk results you can easilly see that the missing control cost X about 2mins, Y about 90 secs etc. It seems obviously the "fair" thing to give that time back to the people who lost it, without changing anything for the unaffected people. The Japanese method means a good estimate of exact time loss data exists - why not use it?


Graeme

[NeilC]

Looking through the Jk results you can easilly see that the missing control cost X about 2mins, Y about 90 secs etc. It seems obviously the "fair" thing to give that time back to the people who lost it, without changing anything for the unaffected people. The Japanese method means a good estimate of exact time loss data exists - why not use it?
Graeme

This "fair" system would be open to abuse though. A competitor finding no control at the feature, and knowing that excess time would be removed, could use that time to rest, scout out later controls, wait for a stronger runner to catch up etc. If this procedure became the norm we might also see more cases of vandalism by competitors who have just seriously messed up a leg.

[guest]

would people really be that sad?

[NeilC]

would people really be that sad?

There certainly are a minority, pre-epunching taking controls out of order was not uncommon albeit a pain to prove or police.

[Adventure Racer]

There are lots of ways to cheat. Outside major elite competition, orienteering still works on a trust basis. graeme's suggestion seems like a good one to me.

[graeme]

Post e-punching it is very difficult though. You could spend half an hour scouting the rest of the course, but it would show up on the splits. You could vandalise the control, but even if you destroy the unit its pretty clear when it happened and therefore who to suspect did it - (controls which people miss big time are least likely to be vandalised by the public). In either case, you still have to run fast enough round the rest of the course.

If you have SI programming software you can reprogramme your e-card to have whatever time you like in it before going to download (and the organisers arent allowed to interrogate the units to decide on DQs:twisted: ). If you've organised an event with emit you know where all the backup pins are so you only need a safety pin (maybe that's why only elites are trusted with bib numbers ). Your chances of being spotted if you recce the area beforehand are almost nil. You can go through the out of bounds because nobody is ever actually DQed for doing so.

Personally, I'm less worried about hypothetical people who use one of the zillion ways of cheating than doing the right thing for honest people who are disadvantaged.

[NeilC]

Keeping my Devil's advocate hat on, let me ask why we have timed starts at major events? Rightly or wrongly there is a perception that some people will take advantage of a situation.

Scouting out the next control or two in a complex area is possible within the time taken to seach for a missing flag. How many times have we relocated off the next control on our course and then had a stunning split for that next leg?

Personally I don't think the right thing to do is obvious. As a partial safeguard against control vandalism though I would certainly insist that tags are not removed prior to the race.

[Adventure Racer]

Keeping my Devil's advocate hat on, let me ask why we have timed starts at major events?

I don't know, why do we have timed starts at major events? Can't see how it makes any difference to cheating, but being a relative novice I obviously haven't worked out some of the more subtle ways of cheating yet.

Scouting out the next control or two in a complex area is possible within the time taken to seach for a missing flag. How many times have we relocated off the next control on our course and then had a stunning split for that next leg?

Yes, but does anybody really do that? This is an amateur sport we're talking about here, and not even the top level (as in that case the only, and correct response seems to be to void the course), but largely middle age people out to have a bit of fun. Yes we like to compete against each other and win trophys, but whilst I'm happy to have a big trophy on my mantlepiece largely because nobody better turned up / everybody else made mistakes, I wouldn't be interested if all it meant was that I'd cheated. On the latter point, in my case the evidence would suggest it doesn't help at all, as at one event this year I dropped my control card on the way to a control, hit the control perfectly, ran straight back to my card, then missed the control on my second attempt

[SYO Member]

Re. Why do we have timed starts at major events?

I have always assumed the main reason is because at most events there is usually an advantage in starting later because tracks through vegetation on common routes have already been created by the earlier competitors. At a punching start for a major event, early runners could just turn up later than their official time and expect to be slotted in, which in addition might let them start adjacent to fellow club members and possibly run round together.

Surely this is why at 2 day events, even with a punching start, you get an early time on one day and late on the other or vice versa? However at single day events it can be unfair on early starters who haven't requested split times.


Where the timed start system fails though is if bad traffic on the way to the event causes delays for some people and the organisers don't put start times forward.

[Gross]

Re. Why do we have timed starts at major events?

.

Because it's still a competitive sport.... if you want otherwise then vote for Disneyland in the Banter forum:)

[Tatty]

At some event s there are the same number of people as start times!! At the last couple of November Classics we've had one or two courses with no spare slots. With an open start some times would be missed and therefore not everyone could run or the start is expected to run for longer than the given 3 hours!!