BOC/BRC appeals

[SJC]

Stupid comment If the control was only 'difficult' then there would be no need to remove splits / void or any other action. If control was wrong (misplaced) then if the athlete spiked the control then he wouldn't deserve to win because he hadn't even visited the correct control site... indeed he should actually be DQ'd

READ THE WHOLE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.

The scenario described is one that can easily happen.

All the leading competitors are in; the top three places decided. All they are doing now is waiting for the prizegiving.

However, someone has just removed one of the controls near the end of the course (an over-zealous control collector perhaps) whilst there are still some of the very slow competitors out there. When they arrive at this control it is missing. At the finish they protest, so in the interest of fairness the leg splits from either side of this control are removed.

The totally unintended consequence of this action is that it changes the order of the three leading competitors, even though none of them was affected by the missing control. Is this fair ?

[Adventure Racer]

Sounds like a cunning plan if you were winning until a control near the end, but made a mess of it (just remember not to move the control at the time, but wait until after somebody you dislike has been through so they get blamed for moving it)

[tokoloshe]

If the scenario is that a late starter with a really long running time didn't punch at a control because it had been collected by an over zealous collector - then I doubt if any jury would decide to void the course or alter the order of the winning runners by taking out the legs either side.

However, what if the last starter was having a cracking run and was similarly disadvantaged by a collected control?

[mharky]

or a sabotaged control? or aliens? or the apocalypse?

[NeilC]

If the scenario is that a late starter with a really long running time didn't punch at a control because it had been collected by an over zealous collector - then I doubt if any jury would decide to void the course.

A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.

[Gross]

I would much rather be second on a reduced, but fair course, than the winner where I happened not to be affected by a misplaced/moved/missing control, but other people were. Of course, for some people that leg(s) might have been their best on the course, or they might have had a howler, but if it turns out to have been unfair for any reason, I can't see why anyone would object to it being removed.

How about if you won the course beating all the likely contenders (none of you suffered from the missing control) but then a few other people who were well off the pace were affected. The splits were removed and you were demoted to fourth place because, unlike the others, you had spiked this particularly difficult control. Would you still feel that it was a fair way of deciding the race winner?

Not quite the same text as I read

[Gross]

If the scenario is that a late starter with a really long running time didn't punch at a control because it had been collected by an over zealous collector - then I doubt if any jury would decide to void the course or alter the order of the winning runners by taking out the legs either side.

However, what if the last starter was having a cracking run and was similarly disadvantaged by a collected control?

If it was a BEOC you would expect the last starter to be a contender... not just a punter out for a jog... different situations...

[Oldman]

A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.

Nah, we would never agree!

[awk]

A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.

I assume (maybe wrongly) you mean the "Kitch" Andy, rather than the "awk" Andy, or the "Loofa" Andy (or....)?!

[distracted]

Surely those last few posts have justified that, if a problem with a course arises, a jury should apply some common sense to the situation dependent on the circumstances of that particular problem. Simple, eh?

Or do you expect a manual to be produced to provide the definitive answer to deal with each and every problem that could occur? Any volunteers?

[Sloop]

Sorry to arrive late in this discussion but ... I am so appalled by the Rules Group pronouncement I've just read that I can't not say anything.

The decision to let junk results stand without any amendment defies any belief in fairness and championship competition. This is bad enough by itself, but no, there is worse to come ...

To then go on and declare split-dropping as NEVER an option is quite simply UTTERLY STUPID AND GRATUITOUS AND PATRONISING and I hope will be comprehensively ignored.

The key phrase which kills me is that split-dropping would "not necessarily provide a fairer result" and therefore it is wholly bad. I'd say it stands a very significant chance of giving a fairer result, and even if it were only marginal would still be better.

Any dodgy control compromises a race. If voiding is felt to be inappropriate, the issue is how best to limit the amount of compromise. Removing the split before and after a dodgy control is a quite simply a common sense and e-punching-enabled way of limiting damage and reducing a compromised course to its non-compromised elements. What is wrong with common sense and transparent fairness ?

Up to this ruling, were you to suffer from a dodgy control, you could try to put it behind you and complete your course with optimism that some sort of natural justice could and would be applied. If this truly appalling ruling is allowed to stand you have the options of:
a) quitting
b) thrashing about knowing that every unfair minute you spend will count against you - and most likely to the advantage of someone not good enough to have navigated to the right place first.

Wonderful. I wouldn't have thought anything could turn me into a quitter, but Rules Group have managed it.

[Gnitworp]

If the scenario is that a late starter with a really long running time didn't punch at a control because it had been collected by an over zealous collector - then I doubt if any jury would decide to void the course.

A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.

Misunderstood again

I haven't joined the 'what's the solution if you break it?' discussion. All I've done is comment on the desirability of 'not breaking it in the first place'.
Surely we can be permitted to at least aspire to this allegedly impossible scenario.

[NeilC]

A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.

I assume (maybe wrongly) you mean the "Kitch" Andy, rather than the "awk" Andy, or the "Loofa" Andy (or....)?!

I meant the "andy" 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.

[DIDSCO]

NeilC wrote:
A jury comprising Oldman, Mharky, Andy, Gross, DIDSCO, Axel and Gnitworp would, if their comments on this thread are to be believed.


I don't know why you bring me in to the discussion. My original post was only about this years W21 Elite British Championships course, I didn't give any further views on course voiding in general.
My second post was about the importance of not making mistakes in the first place so there's never any need to void a course - surely that is the major issue here and one that needs to be adressed by the federation?

[SJC]

If a problem with a course arises, a jury should apply some common sense to the situation dependent on the circumstances of that particular problem. Simple, eh?

Except that, as is evident from this thread, what one person thinks is common sense, someone else will think is totally stupid.

Or do you expect a manual to be produced to provide the definitive answer to deal with each and every problem that could occur?

This is precisely what is needed so that the common sense / stupid idea discussions can be had and agreed actions documented. This would allow any problem to be sorted out at the time, not weeks afterwards in a committee room.