BOC/BRC appeals

[Oldman]

Reference the news item on the BOF web site today.

The final appeal decisions seem to be saying that it is better to have unfairness for some competitors than ever to void a course.

This makes a mockery of a competition being fair.

Or have I misunderstood?

[mharky]

This is absolutely rediculous. It's one thing after another that orienteering in Britain manages to get wrong.

If a control is put in the wrong place at a championship standard event then every course affected should be voided.

[andy]

in my opinion a course where something is wrong - a control out of place, a wrong control number, a wrong description the course should always be voided.

A problem like this can affect the whole psych of your run, put you off balance so to speak.

even voiding the legs before and after the control in question isn't always enough.

but whatever happens it should always be an even playing field for every competitor.

[distracted]

Agreed, that is a very strange decision and a highly unsatisfactory outcome, and there is no justification given in that "explanation" for why letting the results stand is preferable to voiding the course. Yes, the top competitors may not have been affected, and therefore the medal positions wouldn't have changed, but only on W21E and not on M21L, and that is no consolation to those who were affected by the misplaced control.

Secondly, why has there been no comment from either the planner or controller as to how this could happen, and how the situation was handled on the day?

[graeme]

It is unfair to remove the BOC title from someone who deserves to win it. The question is whether, on the evidence of the orienteering that day, the results accurately reflect how well people ran. And with electronic punching we have a lot of evidence.

On M21E, there were misplaced controls. Small amounts of time were lost, nobody complained, as far as I know everyone is happy. Indeed, most courses have a "misplaced" control - the NE rather than N side, a part rather than edge etc. Misplacing a control cannot *necessarily* mean a course should be voided, either in common sense or by rules.

For the individual, there is ample evidence that the results accurately reflect how well people ran on the day: unfairnessess from misplaced controls are no more than the usual ones arising from start time, following etc. Voiding would be more unfair.

However, I dont think time wasted looking for a control that wasn't there should be counted against people. There are many ways to address this: all the splits analysis software have ways of telling how much time was lost compared with that competitor's typical speed. This unfairness can be corrected for, and it should be.

[tendon]

unfairnessess from misplaced controls are no more than the usual ones arising from start time, following etc.

... unfairness can be corrected for, and it should be

Pandora's box?

[graeme]

This unfairness can be corrected for, and it should be

... unfairness can be corrected for, and it should be

Selective misquotation?

[Kitch]

ways of telling how much time was lost compared with that competitor's typical speed. This unfairness can be corrected for, and it should be.

This approach makes the assumption that everyone was going to find the control had it been right.

what if the control had been in the right place and the competitor had made a mistake?

what if the competitor not finding the control was due to them actually being in the wrong place and nothing to do with the control not being where it should?

You can only judge results based on a true run course, anything else is making it up.

[Oldman]

Some comments seem to have gone off the point.

Is it reasonable that where a control is seriously misplaced (not just edge of depression vs centre, contrary to control descriptions, for example), it is being suggested that even though some or even quite a lot of competitors are disadvantaged, voiding the course must be avoided.

Can this be described as fair to those who were disadvantaged? Is this the standard that will apply to all orienteering races in UK?

Even worse, that the results of a major race should stand even where the control is moved mid-race.

[greywolf]

I didn't run the British, so don't want to argue the toss about that event, BUT, i am not impressed by the guidance to officials at future events that "even if there is a problem, leg split times should not be removed from the results".

At the otherwise excellent scottish sprint races this march there was a misplaced control in the morning race, affecting some early runners. As numbers were low (where were you?) it didn't really matter, we were all going to get a run in the final anyway, but splits for the legs before and after were removed from the results and everyone was happy.

I'm not suggesting that removing splits is always the best course of action...but often it will be, especially in qualifying races where the decision has to be made on the spot, and it seems a bit short-sighted for the Rules Group to rule it out.

[Gross]

edge of depression vs centre, contrary to control descriptions, for example), it is being suggested that even though some or even quite a lot of competitors are disadvantaged, voiding the course must be avoided.

I didn't read it as saying that. It says specifically that voiding was NOT considered because of the request of the protester who didn't want the course voided. (I don't think it's a right of a protester to be able to do that though... you protest & then it's up to officials to come up with a response).

Further it does say that dropping splits IS NOT to be considered an option and the choice should be:

1. Leave results as they are
2. Void the course

[FatBoy]

I think the worst part of all this, is nearly 2 months after the race, the result is changed. Perhaps I should now appeal the appeal and request the course be voided and drag the whole situation out further?

[Gross]

Go for it:)

[DIDSCO]

Thats one of the most stupid decisions I've ever read. Who were the jokers that decided that?

The course should be voided. I don't even see why there needs to be any debate about it.

[SJC]

The course should be voided. I don't even see why there needs to be any debate about it.

There seems to be a lot of support for voiding courses when there are mistakes, but who would benefit if this became the standard course of action ?

At the British, those complaining made it clear that they didn't want the courses voided, so why should the organisers go against their wishes.