IOF new e-punching rule?

[graeme]

Discussion of proposals for changes in Foot-O Rules
Frauke Schmitt Gran frauke@halden.net
Sat Sep 9 22:05:40 CEST 2006

Addition to the Special Rules for the 2007 World Cup in Orienteering

Hello!

IOF is in the process of revising the Foot-O Rules from 2004. We plan to
issue new rules valid from January 1st, 2007.

The IOF Foot-O Commission would like to discuss the following idea with you.

Mis-punching (current rule 20.7)

FYI: The current rule 20.7 is:
A competitor with a control punch missing or unidentifiable shall not be
placed unless it can be established with certainty that the punch missing or
unidentifiable is not the competitor’s fault. In this exceptional
circumstance, other evidence may be used to prove that the competitor
visited the control, such as evidence from control officials or cameras or
read-out from the control unit. In all other circumstances, such evidence is
not acceptable and the competitor must be disqualified. In the case of
SportIdent, this rule means that:
• If one unit is not working, a competitor must use the backup provided and
will be disqualified if no punch is recorded
• If a competitor punches too fast and fails to receive the feedback
signals, the card will not contain the punch and the competitor must be
disqualified (even though the control unit may have recorded the competitor’
s card number)

Rule 20.8 is:

When systems with visible punch marks are used, at least a part of the punch
mark must be in the appropriate box for this control or in an empty reserve
box. One mistake per competitor is acceptable, eg. punching outside the
correct box or jumping one box, provided all punch marks can be identified
clearly. A competitor who attempts to gain advantage by inaccurate punching
may be disqualified.

Background:
- We register that rule 20.8. allows "sloppy punching" with visible punching
systems, whereas rule 20.7 explicitly forbids "sloppy punching " with
SportIdent.
- We have a problem with the experiences where Media and Spectators film/see
a competitor punching (sloppyly), but the competitor is disqualified.
- BUT: We also want immediate results, preferably as soon as the competitor
has crossed the finish line.
- And we don't want that competitors gamle for "sloppy punching" in order to
gain time/advantage.

On this background, we have discussed whether IOF should introduce a time
penalty for "sloppy punching" instead of disqualification. For example:
In the case of a missing punch in a competitor's card, but where there is
firm evidence that the competitor visited the control and initiated the
punching process (in the case of SportIdent, that can be obtained by reading
out the control unit), the competitor is not disqualified but instead
receives a 30 second time penalty.

Advantage:
- The competitor is not disqualified and gets a result.

Disadvantage:
- This may delay the results.

Controversials:
- It distorts the results, e.g. in a Sprint. Will people/media/spectators
understand? BUT: Do they understand the disqualification which is a must
today?
- In a relay or mass/casing start, you could have a sprint-finish with the
wrong winner. BUT: You can have that today, too! Isn't it better that the
"wrong winner" at least gets no. 4?
- Would the discussion on the length of the time penalty kill the discussion
about the value of such a rule?
- Foot-O Commission is assuming that organisers nowadays can read out
SportIdent stations in the forest: somebody with laptop, a mobile phone and
a spare SI station would have to get to the control in question, change the
SI station, read it out, and phone the result back to the finish. Is that
realistic on WRE level, or only on a higher level?

Looking forward to a constructive discussion,
Frauke Schmitt Gran
IOF Foot-O Commission

[NeilC]

I gather that the IOF rules commission do NOT support this proposal.

[AndyO]

I can't see how this proposal will resolve any of the concerns raised on these pages and elsewhere. It seems that if the "Media and Spectators film/see
a competitor punching (sloppyly), but the competitor is disqualified", then the SI unit might be interrogated and the runner reinstated with a 30sec penalty. I have never seen anyone punching sloppily - how would you know? You might see someone visiting a control, but when a runner finishes, that control may not register on his card. And if no-one sees you, tough, you're disqualified, even if the SI unit could be interrogated to establish whether you did in fact visit the control.

This rule would discriminate in favour of a few runners, so would be unfair on the rest, so I'm not surprised the IOF rules commission don't support it.

Maybe the significant point here is the awareness that there is an issue, so we should encourage them to keep trying.

[Simon E]

The original proposal was a direct result of Oli Johnson being disqualified in the WOC Long Qualifier. Nobody doubts that he went to the control, but there was no record in his e-card.

My understanding is that the proposal would introduce a special check in cases such as this where the competitor believes they have visited the control, but there is no electronic record. Some form of alternative evidence would then be consulted. If this confirmed that the competitor visited the control then they would be reinstated, but with a time penalty added. (The discussions that I had during WOC week suggested 10 seconds, which seems to have grown to 30 seconds. The principle is more important at this stage than the actual penalty, although it is difficult to keep them separate in the discussion.)

The above is deliberately written to avoid mentioning SI, but this is clearly driven by the SI "punching too fast" problem. In this case the alternative evidence would be consulting the record in the SI control unit, and the required evidence would be a record of a partial punch at the relevant time. Ironically what this is really confirming is that the competitor did indeed punch incorrectly, if we assume that SI are correct in maintaining that you don't get the beep and flash until the punch is correctly written to the SI card.

I can see a lot of merit in something like this, but can also see all sorts of problems in defining the exact circumstances where the new check can be carried out, and the required level of evidence to allow reinstatement.

As examples, would you accept evidence from:
- another runner to confirm that they were at the control at the same time?
- an event official who was at the control?
- photographic evidence of the runner "punching"?
- TV evidence of the runner "punching"?

[Knee Deep Mud!]

This proposal is just trying to mask the symptoms rather than solving the heart of the problem.

The real problem here is that SI (in its current form) is not fit for purpose, as there is no way for the competitor to look at their card to check whether they have correctly punched or not. A beep by something that isn't the actual record of correct punching and which you are not carrying around with you is not adequate to prove you have punched.

We need electronic punching systems (such as EMIT v3) that give this functionality and thus put all responsibility for correct punching back in the competitor's hands. Then there is no scope for argument: No record of punching = disqualification.

My vote is therefore against the proposed changes.

[HOCOLITE]

Are we going to build cameras into the boxes Otherwise as previously stated one person may be observed filmed or whatever but another may visit the control unobserved and therefore not meet the criteria for further investigation. Also if this applies for World Champs the idea will soon filter down to National events and selection races and every race will have controversy or delays in results. Surely the onus must be on the competitor to punch correctly.

[tendon]

This proposal is just trying to mask the symptoms rather than solving the heart of the problem.

Spot on - if the equipment is fault, change the equipment or use something else. Don't change the rules to cover up for SI.

If SI was guaranteed only to flash and beep after all data transfer has taken place, or if a readout confirming a correct punch was available, then there wouldn't be a problem.

So: AGAINST rule changes - use Emit for WRE until SI catches up

[tendon]

For reasons that don't need expanding, I was recently comparing the simplicity of orienterering against the complexity of sports like football (the debate started on the issue of the current version of the offside rule). As it stands, from start to finish, an orienteering race is pure - the winner is judged solely on time (and on the correct sequence of punches). To me, a change that allows for retrospective assessment of punching equipment brings an element of judgement to the sport - starts to be as airy fairy as footie and ice dancing!

[Simon E]

If SI was guaranteed only to flash and beep after all data transfer has taken place, or if a readout confirming a correct punch was available, then there wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think it's quite this simple. I am happy to accept that this is exactly what SI does. I would attribute nearly every "punched too fast" incident to people doing what they do at every control site: punch, subconciously register the beep and flash, run off. However the beep and flash haven't occurred. It's a "human factors" problem: you think you have done everything correctly because you think you did exactly what you did at every other control you ever visited but in reality you haven't heard or seen anything.

One day soon (if it hasn't already happened) we will get someone claiming they checked their Emit V3 read-out and it showed they had visited the control, but when it gets read at the finish there is no record of it. What are you going to say to them at that point?

[graeme]

Or indeed, checking your pin punch, noting the F, and only later being disqualified as the
pin punch was an E.

In practice, SI produces fewer punching errors pin punching: we've had people who visited all the controls DQ'ed from WOC with pinpunches too. Its important to recognise that although imperfect, e-punching is still better than the alternatives.

Graeme

[EddieH]

Firstly, if such a crazy proposal should be taken on board a blanket 30 seconds is crazy - a huge penalty in a sprint race but fairly minor in a long classic. The time penalty would have to be proportional to the winning time.

Secondly, I suspect that Simon E is correct. We must all know of cases where we know that similar mind games have happened.

No SI disqualification is as bad as Yvette Hague's in the Nordic? or was it World Champs? when she had one punch partially out of one box.

[Rookie]

Does Rule 20.8 really allow "sloppy punching" though? It says you can get away with one dodgy punch per race - eg. a punch in the wrong place but still clearly visible on the control card. You have still punched.
Other than that the competitor must re-punch in a reserve box, gaining no advantage since it takes longer.

With SI, you can't sloppy punch. You either punch or don't punch. If you mess something up you need to re-punch everything in the right order.

This rule proposal sounds rubbish, can't go round adding time penalties. It's just wrong

[rocky]

With SI, you can't sloppy punch. You either punch or don't punch. If you mess something up you need to re-punch everything in the right order.

I'd call a punch which is long enough to be recorded in the unit but not in the card a sloppy punch, i think that is the language used by Frauke.

[Gross]

One day soon (if it hasn't already happened) we will get someone claiming they checked their Emit V3 read-out and it showed they had visited the control, but when it gets read at the finish there is no record of it. What are you going to say to them at that point?

Quite simple you would look at the mannual back up card on the emit brikke & that would tell you

[EddieH]

Well I know someone who was CONVINCED that they were disqualified wrongly with Emit at WMOC in Czech. She had a witness who said she had punched, however there was no pin impression for the control. I suspect Simon has the answer - she believed an obstruction had prevented the card from going in properly.

Anyway, how many people actually place the emit brick in the slot nowadays? My biggest dislike of Emit is that the light is so dim it is invisible unless the weather is dull. So no system is perfect.

They are both 1000% better than manual punching.