Controller's responsibilities

[Freefall]

I understand that it is the Planner's responsibility to place controls in the right place and ensure that the code on SI boxes (or whatever) is correct. Does anyone have a view on how important it is for the controller to a) check every control site prior to runners going out and b) check dibbing units?

My own view is that neither is mandated or necessary and that if the control sites are clearly marked (ideally with a code or actual number)there may only be a need to carry out spot checks or possible "iffy" sites. Cannot see any real value to check dibbing - units can fail at any time and assuming the battery life was checked on initial programming, box number matches electronic printout no problem. Worth checking (and listening out) for units waking up at the correct time.

[NeilC]

As a controller I would expect the planning team to have visited each control site on the day of the event and ideally checked that the units are functional.

I would expect the planning team to let me know if a control was placed in a location where no tape/tag could be found - this would be a candidate control for me to visit. If all controls are put out next to previously agreed tapes then I feel little need to visit them again. There are generally things that need checking elsewhere (start layout etc).

[Gnitworp]

I, as a controller, always check every control marker siting and code (or have a trusted assistant do it) after they have been installed in situ by whoever.
Hearsay evidence that a tape was found is insufficient in my book. It's just too important.

As a planner I feel a lot happier if my controller does the same, but accept that this doesn't absolve me from my responsibility.

My sister, who's less inclined to belt round 80 odd controls at the crack of dawn (like I probably will be in a few years), uses a double tag system whereby one of the tags has to been physically returned to the planner for the siting to be accepted.
Whatever your system is, it needs to be fail-safe.
For instance, with the above, codes could still be transposed even though sitings must be correct; and in my experience this often happens. You really do need a physical check to 'catch' this common mistake.

Checking beeps is less important in that the competitor immediately knows what is wrong and can take prescribed alternative action (i.e. punch map).

[Freefall]

Event in question is Lakes Day 1. Sites have tent pegs numbered with control number. All on the open fell so not hidden by vegetation. They can be moved by sheep with some difficulty.

As I have my leg in plaster (see ruptured achilles thread) it will not be me checking but my lovely assistant (Dick Towler) is happy enough to try and get around everything.

[DaveR]

I agree with Gnitworp. Probably the most likely mistake
to be made on the day/day before is a transposition
of two controls so an independent check
that the correct code is at the site is vital.

Checking that all the boxes wake up is less important.

I am, of course, assumming that all the other
checking of sites and courses has been done well in advance

[Gnitworp]

In the dim, distant past, before the flood, controllers used to be called 'Course Vetters'.
That's still their main function; providing an independent check that often picks up mistakes and 'saves' the event.

[Freefall]

Of course I checked all controls previously - that's essential. What do you mean about transposing codes? Even if you left say the wrong SI box at the control when you come to look for the box later on you will discover the error.

Strangest one we had a while ago was a control box that had been "lost" at a previous event turned up in the bottom of the planner's rucksac at the next event. He was mystified as a new box had been labelled and put out on the course. Very confusing to find the box, which had not been lost at all, left in the rucksac. Hard to follow but you might get my drift.

[graeme]

BOF rule 4.4.1 The controller is responsible for confirming that the event is organised fairly and in accordance with these rules.

You can read 6.3 (control banner) and 6.4 (control codes) for yourself, its hard to see a way of confirming that they are followed without a visit to the flag once it is in place. e.g. The tape won't tell you if the control is hung at a fair height (a very common problem).

Transposing codes - e.g. hang flag 31 at site 32 and 32 at site 31. Easy to do, and common to find as a controller.

Graeme

[NeilC]

All good reasons for encouraging planners to get at least the stakes out a day or two in advance so that the controller can check them at their leisure. At controlling courses I always get asked (usually by the more veteran attendees) whether the controller has to visit all the sites on the morning of the event. If I say yes then our pool of controllers will drop in number.

Graham correctly quotes some BOF rules relating to planning - there are many others that relate to organisational issues all of which can affect event fairness. These must not be neglected at the expense of forest checking - this often means that the controller has to make decisions about how best to spend his time on the morning of an event.

[Oldman]

I am enjoying this thread. It is informative to us, the majority who who have never planned or controlled other than minor events.

It also concentrates on a topic at the centre of the sport.

It would be beneficial if BOF itself or more of their experienced controllers (and even ex-controllers) could weigh in with their opinions and experience.

[Gross]

I don't think it's essential for the controller to visit all the controls on the morning of the competition, I don't even think it's essential for the controller to visit any of the controls once they are out in the forest.

What is essential is that all controls are checked for location, visability, codes etc etc by someone reliable & technically capable... so in freefall's case above it's quite ok for the assistant to check the sites. What the controller needs to remember is that if something goes wrong it's his head on the block.

At the 6 Days last year we had something like 250 control sites... I visited them all at least three times during the planning stages & again once they were all out in the forest (except for a couple of straight forward ones)... that took a couple of visits. On the morning of the competition ALL sites were visited by a team of 5 checkers to get confirmation that all was well....

When planning the British Champs on Creag Mhic way back whenever the controller was slightly frustrated as we didn't put any tapes out at all... because of the danger to the expensive Highland cattle on the hillside

[Freefall]

I am glad I started this thread. Some useful and conflicting thoughts coming back. I agree with Gross that it is not necessary to try and visit all the controls on the day/previous day. It is the Planner's responsibility to make sure the controls are correct. Of course it is helpful if the planner is not so experienced (as a competitor or as a planner) to be given advice by the controller if there is any doubt.

My planner is one of the top M45s and I am a Grade 2 controller with 35 years orienteering experience so I think I am confident about decisions taken so far.

I know we have BOF Rules etc but I think correctly they give guidance rather than mandate things such as checking controls on the day. In some circumstances it is a near impossible task, even over 2 days (I planned the National and VHI at Kyloe last year and I know just how tough it can be getting around).

Add to this the fact that many of the Grade 1 and 2 controllers may not be in their absolute flush of youth or fitness and you can see getting around may not make sense.

Of course if it can be done (and the controller is happy to do it) there can be no objection to going round the lot. No point in being slavish to this however. Controls do go missing and get "moved" even during a competition as I am sure we all know.

Still not sure how check punshing SI helps?

[Snail]

As a controller I have encountered the "double tape" scenario more than once:
- planner initially places tape on a similar nearby feature
- controller tells planner that tape is missing
- planner places second tape on correct feature.
- neither realise that the incorrect tape is still there.

(I have encountered a similar situation as a competitor - finding a tape with the correct code, but no flag, in a similar nearby feature, so perhaps it happens more frequently than you might expect.)

Hence I agree with the planner in advance that between us we will visit all sites once controls are in situ - meaning that I visit all sites that the planner hasn't personally hung, whether this is on the morning or on the previous day. If we both delegate hanging / checking to assistants with a less detailed knowledge of the area it is quite possible for the control to be hung at the incorrect tape.

Not uncommon nowadays for clubs to have one or two SI boxes that are playing up - or even just the planner failing to check the battery life correctly - so I always ensure that they are checked on the morning, but accept that even this isn't foolproof.

[Freefall]

I accept the tape argument. My planner has actually used tent pegs labelled with number - it is open moorland and lends itself to that. Assuming he has not created a duplicate tent peg and has moved tent pegs at sites that I wanted changed (and these are ones I would want checked on the day/day before)it has to be more or less foolproof?

Even transposing shouldn't be possible - check peg, see number, place marker, place SI unit. If a mistake is made (and it can be) the wrong placement will show up. Foolproof again?

[HOCOLITE]

Even transposing shouldn't be possible - check peg, see number, place marker, place SI unit. If a mistake is made (and it can be) the wrong placement will show up. Foolproof again?

Transpositon of two controls with SI boxes happened at an event a couple of years ago. Ver highly respected planner can't remember controller. It did show up but not before it had caused an awful lot of trouble on the yellow course. Very confused kids when they navigate to one control and find the number for the next