maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5  

Nationals Sprint Protest

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 9 April 2012, 12:00 PM  
So what happened with this?

Is there a reciprocal obligation for the powers that be to provide a written reply to the competitors written protest?

Do we have the balance right between protestor/controller/jury? Is there a need for an "athletes representative" or such like to make protests when appropriate so athletes don't need to expose themsleves to the potential disapproval of the community.

For the record, I respect Mr Bradshaw's action in protesting, and as my knowledge stands believe it should have been upheld.

Show Profile  NW Posted: 9 April 2012, 12:07 PM  
Official decision as delivered in written format to Mr Bradshaw
"
Protest Jury decision
A protest was received regarding mapping of impassable walls on course one. This related especially to control 22 of the elite course.
The jury agreed that the area around the control should have been defined by the symbol for an impassable wall.
The jury then considered whether this was of sufficient import to invalidate the course.
In a majority view the jury decided to let the results stand as the error was not significant enough to invalidate the course.
The jury acknowledges that the protest had validity and recommends the refund of the protest fee
"


Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 9 April 2012, 1:17 PM  
Thanks NW.

Firstly there shouldn't have been a protest fee for a WRE.

But what does "significant" mean in the context of the reasoning of the decision..

some IOF rules...

"Sporting fairness shall be the guiding principle in the interpretation of these rules by competitors, organisers and the jury."

"Maps, course markings and additional overprinting shall be drawn and printed according to the IOF International Specification for Orienteering Maps or the IOF International Specification for Sprint Orienteering Maps. Deviations need approval
by the IOF Council"

"Errors on the map and changes which have occurred in the terrain since the map was printed shall be overprinted on the map if they have a bearing on the event."

I'm not sure there is too much more in there, or the NZOF rules that is relevant? I'm keen to learn if otherwise...On this info, my preliminary view is that the jury could at least frame their reasoning around the guiding principle of "fairness".

Would the jury have still be willing to put their names to the statement"the error was not significant enough to affect the fairness of the course"?

And I can't help noting that only one "error" appears to have been taken into account. I would imagine when assessing fairness that cumulative "errors" would be relevant.


Show Profile  Casser Posted: 9 April 2012, 2:52 PM  
It would be great to get the sprint splits for course 1 on winsplit - and then one can make up ones own mind if it was fair or not

Show Profile  AllanJ Posted: 9 April 2012, 3:15 PM  
Splits are now up on winsplit.

Show Profile  AllanJ Posted: 9 April 2012, 3:17 PM  
Sorry, will be up in due course!

Show Profile  HeadHoncho Posted: 9 April 2012, 3:18 PM  
From an IOF document published in 2010:

Reason to void a competition

There can be no hard and fast rule determining when a race should be voided and when the results should be left to stand with those adversely affected by a problem regarded as unfortunate. However the key considerations should be:
" Has the problem affected the results so badly that the race is no longer perceived by the competitors, the public and the media as reasonably fair with credible results?
" Is it probable that the results will be challenged and the challenge upheld?
" Does the perceived unfairness outweigh the requirement to declare a result and
celebrate the winners?

The same document also states "Voiding a race is an option that should be avoided if at all possible"

Jamie, I can only speak for myself and the actions I took, but my analysis of the splits showed 1-2-3 had not been affected and taking the above words into consideration, blowed if I'm going to void a race just because athletes in midfield have their tits in a tangle over losing 20 or so seconds. In 1996 I got told at a World Cup my protest was thrown out because it didn't affect World Cup points - didn't like hearing it at the time but I now understand the point.

Actually it wasn't a decision taken lightly - in my opinion it was a significant deficiency in mapping and I think you can make a reasonable case either way (to invalidate or to let results stand). My action to dismiss the complaint was based on the words above, to avoid invalidation if possible and to celebrate those who did well. I'd do the same thing again as in my mind, a greater injustice would be done if Tim was deprived of a national title that he had clearly earned.

Show Profile  Keith Posted: 10 April 2012, 1:31 AM  
Link to <a href="http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Cancelling-a-competition.pdf">Link Document</a> that Rob quotes from.

When I first read this I was suprised at how often the results stand.


Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 10 April 2012, 4:18 AM  
I have never protested and probably never will. On the few ocasions
when there was something wrong, the organisers invalidated the course or someone else usually protested
or I was never going to come in the top 3 so it didn't matter.
Not an easy decision to make if I was a member of the protest jury.

With sprint maps, I think it's a lot harder to get everything mapped correctly (and also contentious when levels or out-of-bounds are involved - my view is that controls shouldn't be placed near changes in levels, or where a competitor could easily go out-of-bounds accidentally or on purpose).
ISSOM states: 'In urban areas, it is not unusual to find mult-level areas. ISSOM allows for the representation of simple underpasses and overpasses. More complex multilevel areas which cannot be mapped clearly are not suitable for IOF events.'

What I did find a bit disturbing was that I shadowed my 9 year old son at the sprint and I think he had the same control - a wall was missing and he had to go up a level, up some stairs and turn back on himself to find the control in a little dead-end alleyway. There was no way he was going to find this control without my help. Most of his course was red not white.

To my mind, there were also two controls on the middle course that was not white at well where one control was off the linear feature
and another which required a cross-country section but was not taped.

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 10 April 2012, 2:23 PM  
From the setters perspective it has been a great learning experience. I have heard some really good suggestions for others following the event and have summarised below, could be an early topic for the reformed technical committee.

1. In hindsight I did make course 4 and 5 too hard. I overestimated skills, especially for the M/W10 grades. I found it hard to get a truly white course with some many linear features, something for future sprint setters to be aware of.

2. Mapping multilevel areas is challenging. I should have used the ISSOM guidelines more closely throughout the setting process. Perhaps a dropbox or google docs style resource folder (with 4-5 documents max) would be good for the future.

3. Finally scale in sprint is key. I had a few people ask why we didn't use 1:4000 with a map flip. If I was to run the event again I would do this. With OCAD and sportident we can have innovative course designs that maximise small areas while having the added benefit of showing more on the smaller scale.

Thanks for all the feedback, everything I heard at the event was packaged in a really constructive way.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 10 April 2012, 4:25 PM  
Good info. Actions accepted Honcho.

We need to understand though that the reasoning is going to make it damn hard to ever protest map errors at a Nationals...best we don't make them.


Show Profile  SJ Posted: 10 April 2012, 7:01 PM  
Can we see some splits...?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 11 April 2012, 5:54 AM  
I was on the jury so shouldn't comment further on the voiding decision. But a few procedural things.
1. There should be no disapproval of a complaint or protest action. It's the mechanism we have set up to hear issues.
2. Given the IOF guidance referred to above, I would expect a lot of decisions to be like this one - yes there was something wrong but the result will stand.
3. The jury names are supposed to be announced in advance, they are not hiding. Alister Metherell, Owen Cambridge, Michael Wood.
4. I think the decision should be announced to everyone. It could perhaps have been done at the relays, and should certainly be on the event website.
5. Wise organisers will review their events, and not just the incidents that led to protests. The technical committee used to report on A-status events. There used to be newsletters for planners and controllers.

Show Profile  AllanJ Posted: 11 April 2012, 3:29 PM  
Splits are now up for course 1 on the sprint.

Show Profile  darren Posted: 12 April 2012, 2:12 AM  
Looks like Carsten was the big casualty from number 22. He definitely lost 3rd place and quite possibly 2nd. Personally I would say it had a pretty big impact on the podium results.

Show Profile  Jason Posted: 12 April 2012, 3:47 AM  
I wasn't at nationals this year but as a planner of A-level events I want to know as much of the background as possible. Thanks for posting constructively.

I protested at a world cup in Sweden once, but as the general discussion here has confirmed it was unlikely to succeed unless podium contenders had protested. Although some of the podium finishers may not have been aware of the problem (only two Emit punches for a mass-start field of about 200) I respect the right of the few who thought they were disadvantaged to abstain from protest.



1   2   3   4   5  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz