Missing Control

[graeme]

Taking Graham's idea to a different sport, a football referee should never blow their whistle until the other side feel hard-done enough to make a protest.

I've never said the organisers/controllers shouldn't
make decisions - whatever gave you that idea?

On the other hand, if the "offended-against" team dont want the decision, I think they can have the option...

And in cricket you aren't out unless there's an appeal. Madness? or sanity which allows a batsman to toss the ball back to the bowler without automatically being out "handled the ball".

Or like (very rarely) in football when someone deliberately misses a wrongly-awarded penalty.
(I have a vague memory of Paulo di Canio here)

The controller should be the independent referee, but we go still further and have juries who aren't involved in the event.

I'm not clear what actually happened in this case -
From whats been said it seems Vidalos protested, the jury said they would void the course, then what?

Similarly, the controller should automatically reinstate competitors if the mispunch isnt their fault - as is obviously the case here.

I really wish we had far more protests, so that this kind of issue can be properly aired and understood, and the stigma of protesting is removed. At present, people who complain are made to feel very very awkward, and anyone who protests gets the blame.

[LostAgain]

We were also disadvantaged by the missing control on the mini relay. We did not complain as our first runner was very inexperienced (W7) and therefore I could not be sure of what happened.

It has become apparent that she was clearly disadvantaged by the missing control, She subsequently missed a further 2 controls having lost confidence ultimately getting the team DQ. Unlikely to have challenged for medals, so no effect on top placings.

It is unfortunate and we'll be trying to re-build her confidence so that she will take part in relays again.

Was the effected DVO team not NC?

[Homer]

Bart was also affected by the missing control. I told him to put it down to experience. It seems it is an experience he will have to get used to in the future and will therefore stand him in good stead!

Sorry to change the subject somewhat, but on the topic of Mini Relays, what do others think about the level of technical standard of these events?

I remember when they were first introduced they were a very simple course, virtually around the assembly area and almost entirely visible to the spectators. They also started first and had virtually finished before any other classes started.

Now they seem to have become a proper relay with longer courses of TD2/TD3 standard, made harder by gaffling of controls. They are now really only suitable for experienced M/W10A's and M/W12's. I'm a little surprised at Lost Again sending out an inexperienced W7, although a few years ago she would have had no problem.

Why the gradual move to harder and harder courses? At Pwll Du it would have been difficult to make the course much easier and perhaps that the reason. I would like to see the standard of Mini Relays go back to where they were when they were first introduced. There is always the older junior classes for more experienced M/W12's.

[SJC]

So why don't the jury fulfil their responsibilities and void the course?

There is no compulsion on the jury to void the course. They are there to make a decision based on the facts, which in this case they obviously thought didn't warrant the race being voided.

Personally, as an organiser I would almost never void a course. The planner and controller will know they have got it wrong, and would not have done so deliberately. Voiding achieves nothing for those affected other than the echievement of 'if I can't win then I don't want anybody else to win either'.

There is a good parallel in athletics middle distance races. How many Olympic finals have seen top athletes fall through no fault of their own ? If they were pushed they may protest and get the offending athlete disqualified, but have you ever seen the race voided ? Not a chance. It is just one of those things in sport. Things aren't always fair and we all just have to learn to live with it.

[Nails]

Voiding achieves nothing for those affected other than the echievement of 'if I can't win then I don't want anybody else to win either'.

Balls. This situation should never arise in the first place. By not voiding courses you are basically saying to organisers/planners/controllers that 'actually it is ok -you don't need to have the controls in the right place or the codes can be wrong or perhaps if the computer cocks up the results not to worry about it.'

Balls to what you are saying about fairness too. You are talking as if you expect to turn up to an event run on jobby map/with bad planning/missing controls/wrong codes/wrong descriptions and you'd go away happy. Whats the point in having rules if people just ignore then. It's expected on a track that there might be jostling for position -we don't expect controls not to be there. Well I certainly don't and this idea that is was the same for everyone is quite franky tosh.

[Ed]

There is a good parallel in athletics middle distance races. How many Olympic finals have seen top athletes fall through no fault of their own ? If they were pushed they may protest and get the offending athlete disqualified, but have you ever seen the race voided ?

Bad analogy. The faller fell due to either (a) their own fault or (b) the intervention of another competitor.

A better analogy (controller's conundrum alert) would be:

The organisers set the runners in an 800m race off on a dodgily measured staggered start so that half the field run a first lap of 380m and half the field 420m, but all run a 400m second lap.

The expected winner still wins by a large margin.

One of the competitors reckons something was a bit dodgy as their first lap split was significantly longer than expected. They put in a protest and the measurements are made and the situation discovered.

You have accurately recorded the times of all runners at the bell.

Re-running the race is not an option due to time constraints, and some of the competitors have already left.

You therefore have three options:
1. you could let the results stand, as the expected winner won by a large margin anyway.
2. you could just base the results on the second lap as, hey, that's the same for everyone, and the winner would stay the same as they were so far ahead anyway.
3. you could void the race.

Are either of the first two options "fair"?

[Mr Average]

Having been reading comments etc for some time, i thought it was about time that i actually registered and contributed.

Firstly I must agree with Nails, the situation shouldnt occur in the first place, however if it does (and sometimes it will due to external influences) the only fair and equitable solution is to void the course.

You can not just take out the leg leading upto and out of the missing control because by then a competitor may have already given up any hope of finishing, be knackered after running around looking for it or just plain disillusioned and treating the rest of the course as a training exercise. For this to occur on a mini-relay it is even more of a trial as youngsters will look at the 'winners' and think 'that isnt fair - i didnt know'

Maybe more courses should be voided (for good reasons only) and this will go to show that the sport is taking it's competitive nature seriously. Do we really want to be associated with - "it's the taking part that is important" attitude.

There are serious and dedicated athletes in orienteering and if we really want to use these as role models for our juniors we need the sport to be shown in the right light.

[King Penguin]

... but who benefits by voiding the course - no-one !
Comepetitors have paid good money for travel / accommodation / entry; Organisers, Planners, Controllers and a host of helpers have given freely of their time - for what ? Absolutely nothing; it's as if the event never was.
Of course the situation should not happen, but let's get real - it does - and there's various threads on Nope all offering similar opinions after each such occurrence. The world is not perfect, we have to accept that and ensure we have appropriate rules which give the least bad outcome when problems do occur.
Taking the football analogy to ridiculous lengths, if a foul or handball is committed in the box they don't cancel the whole game and send everyone home frustrated, they award a penalty. Ideally the offence would never occur but in the real world these things do happen. It's absolutely right to make every effort to avoid/prevent them, but it's equally right to have appropriate solutions available when they do occur.

[Duxxer]

control 4 (170) was missing on the first leg turning leg between 3 and 5 into TD 3 or 4 beyond TD 2 for mini relay. A number of juniors could not then navigate easily from 3 (past missing 4) to 5

Based on what I remember from my daughter's map, which I don't have in front of me, a leg from control 3 to control 5 would still be TD2 - it involves line features (a path and a linear marsh) with a decision point without a control marker (at the path/marsh junction) and only one decision point (max 2) on the leg.

The problem was that the competitors were not presented with a leg from 3 to 5 when they would have had to take care going along the path to work out exactly where to turn off on to the marsh, but had a TD1 leg along the path from 3 to 4 and a TD2 leg along the marsh from 4 to 5.

The other problem is that too many "TD2" courses that I see are in fact a longer version of the TD1 course with some of the controls missed out. All on paths and with the TD1 course controls at the decision points. They don't use other line features or simple point features just off the line features. So when the competitors come across a real TD2 course they get an unpleasant surprise.

[Mr Average]

King Penguin wrote
"... but who benefits by voiding the course - no-one ! "

but who benefits from not voiding it when the results are not a true reflection of the competition ?

Surely it is better to have everyone on a level playing field at the end of the day. If someone has won but they know that they are not really the 'true winner' do they get any satisfaction from that?

These juniors will be the planners/organisers/controllers of the future, isnt it better to get them use to the fact that things need to be right the first time around otherwise everyone suffers.

[Snail]

If a course is voided:

Comepetitors have paid good money for travel / accommodation / entry; Organisers, Planners, Controllers and a host of helpers have given freely of their time - for what ? Absolutely nothing; it's as if the event never was.

Rubbish! For a start in most cases the issue is about voiding one or two courses only - the remainder are fine.

And even the results for a course are voided that doesn't mean the the majority of competitors didn't enjoy their run - just that the results are sufficiently unfair that the controller / jury feels that shouldn't be used to award titles / ranking points / whatever.

[SJC]

You therefore have three options:
1. you could let the results stand, as the expected winner won by a large margin anyway.
2. you could just base the results on the second lap as, hey, that's the same for everyone, and the winner would stay the same as they were so far ahead anyway.
3. you could void the race.

Are either of the first two options "fair"?

No, neither of the first two options is as fair as an equal race for everybody would have been. But it is now too late to change what happened, and I have every confidence that at a major event, if there was no opportunity to re-run the race the following day, the result would be allowed to stand. Not having a medal ceremony would not be acceptable to the hosts, the sponsors, the TV companies, or anyone else involved.

Going back to my point. Organisers and planners don't deliberately get things wrong, and problems like missing controls are beyond their control. Things aren't always fair and the sooner people learn to live with that fact the better.

[LostAgain]

[quote="Homer"] I'm a little surprised at Lost Again sending out an inexperienced W7, although a few years ago she would have had no problem.

[quote]

It was not our intention, but the lack of juniors attending from our club meant that the club captain asked whether she would run in order to make up a team. This way the other two members got a run, who found it fine as they were experienced M12's.

[EddieH]

Some of you are very unforgiving of volunteers' errors. No I don't like them either, but I'd rather have the volunteers than no sport - a totally condemning attitude will kill the sport faster than the nmistakes themselves as more and more people won't risk putting themselves forward.
wo things have happened in my planning of the SOL at Rogie this month which show just how a mistake just might be made despite all our efforts (PLEASE realise that I am SURE there will be none, but ...)

1 My controller wondered why I'd changed tag colour but accepted a site. He then saw my tag a metre or so away. Just suppose I'd made a mistake (I hadn't) the controller would have done his job but actually found an old unremoved tape. On the weekend I find my tag and hang the control, and the ontroller having confirmed the tag finds the control there.

2 The controller was unable to find 4 of my tags. I have returned and sure enough all 4 are nowhere to be found. I have replaced them. Now let's suppose that rather than go missing,(as I am CERTAIN they have done,) I had tagged the wrong site. In the heat of [putting out the controls is it not possible that the planner comes across his original tag and places the control there.

I repet NEITHER of scenarios will happen at Rogie, but surely they have both hapened and both will again. Do you castigate the officials and refuse to let them officate again? Maybe they'd like to be banned and let others do the work.

[freaky_phil]

SJC:

But it is now too late to change what happened, and I have every confidence that at a major event, if there was no opportunity to re-run the race the following day, the result would be allowed to stand.

Not quite you still have 14 days to appeal the jury's decision to the Rules Group.

All Leg 1 runners had the same 3-4-5 controls, so the legs could be removed as Appendix I of the rules states. The gaffling of courses did not affect that part of the course. The SBOC lads were trying to do the double this year having won the JK. By taking out legs 3-4-5 they would have won the British, as it was they were 17 secs behind OD. Our 1st leg runner was 1st to the control site (confirmed by the Controller), he hunted around for the control, tried to re-locate (as he had been taught) only to be caught up by other 1st leg runners. The controller told the runners to carry on to control 5, some listened others continued looking for the control (our lad included).
If you were running in the British Champs and someone came up to you and said "oh don't worry the controls not there, carry on" would you potentially abandon your run on the say so of some bloke ?.
On analysis of the results by removing the legs only OD and SBOC would change places (SBOC 1st, OD second), so just a minor effect
As like all kids none of this came to light until the journey home "oh yea I was doing really well until number 4 wasn't there and loads of other kids caught me up, and some bloke told us don't worry about it" arghhhhh
Neither the controller or organiser has actually explained why the control was missing? Was it actually put out? if it was stolen why were they standing at the control site, how did they know it was stolen as no-one had finished the course and why didn't they have a spare SI unit with them. Whenever I've planned/controlled any event I always carry 2 spare SI units, a flag and a stake.
Frankly I think they should either void the course or remove the legs. Doing nothing doesn't achieve anything.