New Technology and Invalidating a course

addison Posted: 24 May 2007, 2:38 PM   What about in the relay a few years ago when a control or two at a schools event was forgotten to be put out, so they just took off the first leg runner I think?   Bryan Posted: 24 May 2007, 11:14 PM   In the ANZ Challenge a few years ago in Australia, some of the first leg runners were affected by a wrong code, so they were excluded from the results. I thought it was not totally fair at the time as it affected later runners.   onemanfanclub Posted: 25 May 2007, 3:49 PM   I guess the question here is, when a fair result can't be given is it better to have a not particularly fair result or no result? That's probably quite subjective and would differ depending on the event. I imagine if this occured in a trial situation, while it might still be appropriate to invalidate the race, selectors could still use whatever they percieve to be unaffected parts of the course to help with decisionmaking. Something that's just come to mind while I've been typing - I was going to finish with a comment along the lines of the best solution is for controllers to do their best to make sure problems don't occur, but that made me wonder if removing affected legs being available as a "quick fix" would encourage a bit of almost subconscious sloppiness when deadlines started getting tight...   Greg Posted: 26 May 2007, 3:50 AM   If people follow the proper practices that are set then there shouldn't be too many problems, the best solution is education so it doesn't happen. The problems that have happened in NZ in the past is when the controller has too much to do with the planning of the course and control placement, they should be as independent as possible to be fair   Michael Posted: 26 May 2007, 5:43 AM   Australian rules App 10: "It is tempting, but almost always wrong, to try to make use of the electronic punching split times to "remove" a problem control.   robbie Posted: 27 May 2007, 2:37 PM   I am well aware of both situations with regard to simon re schools relay and bryan re anz challenge as I was the manager in one and the culprit in the other. In both cases the deleteing of a controk was done with full co-operation of all interested parties as the best possable result for all. As it was done with full conceltation with all parties there were not complaints. If a controk was depeted from an elite competition with out the concent of elites then you nare asking for trouble. So I believe the answer is to use the modern equipment available with full consent from all parties involved   Michael Posted: 28 February 2008, 9:46 AM   Found on a MTBO forum where the same issue was being debated. The posting was dated 20 Jan 08 "Now there has been a clear decision about that by the IOF-Rules-Commission at the IOF-Joint Meeting yesterday. By a coincidence they have discussed this problem before we asked them and told the MTBO-Commission following: If there are problems with wrong or missing controls or anything else it is not possible to take one or two controls out of the race result. Only whole races shall be ranked. This (in different words) will also appear in the new rules (for all disciplines, not just for MTBO) which will most probably be valid from 1.5.2008 as everything has to be approved by the IOF-Council which will meet in April." I don't think this would BIND countries except for any IOF events that they run (as far as we are concerned, WRE's). But there is a strong suggestion that countries should pattern their own rules on the IOF ones. Presumably this will filter down to us eventually.