1   2   3

Auckland Champs Middle

scottv Posted: 22 October 2013, 1:59 PM   I was the overall controller for the middle course on Saturday, brought in to give the event A Grade status. It was my responsibility that the control placement was not corrected before the event. I want to say I'm really sorry to everyone affected by the mis-placement. It's an event that many would have put a lot of time training for, and I feel really bad about the outcome. Control 78 was about 10-15m north of where it should have been, but visibility was low. I have spoken with other senior controllers and heard feedback from elites, and there's seems to be agreement that the results should be declared, as at the control prior to the mis-placed control. To me, this is a fairer outcome rather than invalidating the courses. The results will be recalculated in the next day or 2 for courses 1,2 and 3.   addison Posted: 22 October 2013, 2:23 PM   Hi Scott Sorry to hear about the issue at the event. Unfortunately, once an event has taken place, after the fact you cannot change the outcome of the results - as it doesn't provide everyone with the opportunity to either protest the controllers decision in a fair way. The results should stand in accordance with our rules. Regards Simon   DMjunior Posted: 23 October 2013, 4:32 AM   Why if senior controllers and the competitors affected by the mistake agree on Scotts suggested solution are you not allowing it? For starters, no decision was made within 60 minutes of the event and thoughts around the matter were being surveyed the next day. The general vibe around the event (and I was there) was that its a bummer that this happens reasonably frequently in New Zealand but a lot of effort had been put into the weekend (from organizers and competitors) and that talking it out and finding a solution that worked for everyone was good. The controllers managed to talk with all those affected and gauged opinions then made a sensible decision and announced it. I struggle to see why this is a problem. If someone was going to protest the controllers call they would have made their standpoint well known when surveyed by the controller the day after. People go orienteering for enjoyment and having some sort of results come out of a race is better than none. Yes, we need to eliminate these mistakes from our events but this will only happen if we step up the training, not ramp up the punishment for making the mistake. Really though, time frames for making decisions and following rules to the letter are perhaps something that NZOF do not want to get into as inconsistencies of late do tend make people wonder what exactly does apply.   jeffg Posted: 23 October 2013, 7:57 AM   Having a quick look at the rules, it seems like the procedures and timelines for handling complaints and protests are pretty well described. However, in the case where the controller identifies a problem with fairness but no complaint is formally made (maybe that is the case in this event?) things are not quite so clear cut. Official results have to be circulated within 4 weeks of the event (according to 24.2). I may have missed it but I can't see any rule that precludes Scott making the decision he has posted above, if there was no complaint filed. It looks to me like he has followed 31.2 (below) and while he may not have consulted the technical committee (as listed in 31.4, below) he has at least consulted some of the affected athletes and some senior controllers before making his decision. Even if they haven't been DSQ'd or DNF'd, in the spirit of rule 30.1 (again, below) a disadvantaged athlete would/should be able to appeal Scott's decision and have that appeal dealt with by a jury of controllers. There may be a relevant section of the rules I've missed, but Simon, in light of this discussion, can you indicate what part of the rules support the stance you took in your reply to Scott? Cheers, Jeff A(ish) level controller 31.2 The Controller shall ensure that rules are followed in accordance with the guiding principle of sporting fairness and that mistakes are avoided. The Controller has the authority to require adjustments to be made if they deem them necessary to satisfy the requirements of the event. ...and... 31.4 The Controller shall have the deciding voice in all matters pertaining to fairness. If an insoluble difference of opinion arises, the NZOF Technical Committee shall be consulted. ...and... 30.1 A competitor who finds themselves DSQd or DNFd on receiving final results has the right of appeal. The race Controller shall reconvene (not necessarily physically) the Jury, if necessary up to one week from the receipt of the official event results, to settle an appeal.   jeffg Posted: 23 October 2013, 9:29 AM   Simon, I should add that I didn't attend the above event and wasn't one of those consulted. But as a controller I'm certainly interested in how it all washes up, as I'm sure other controllers are. And as an AOC member I'd like to see an official result if one can be achieved that maintains the spirit of fairness and is in keeping with the rules.   scottv Posted: 23 October 2013, 3:06 PM   I was trying to get a fairer outcome from the unfortunate circumstances and I think sometimes the rules don't serve their purpose (my view not necessarily my club's). However I accept your decision Simon, so the results will stay unchanged.   DMjunior Posted: 24 October 2013, 3:02 AM   Why is it Simon's decision? Is he the technical committee now too?   Jamie Posted: 24 October 2013, 7:19 AM   ...I think so Duncan, and someone said he was also the High Performance Director... ....I maintain the course should have been invalidated. Hard to be too much more black and white than a control in the wrong place. ...I also maintain an athlete shouldn't be put in the position of making that call when the facts are so obvious ...it is also worth noting that in a situation like this, a controller taking proactive action removes any doubt that a solution should apply equally to all grades affected...not just the grade any complainant is competing in. ...Jeffs question to Simon is a good one. Bygones be bygones though, obviously some need for controllers to butt heads a little and work out how we are going to develop some consistency in how this is approached.   addison Posted: 24 October 2013, 10:50 AM   Duncan I wouldn't throw stones in glasshouses. Jeff and others: Imagine a sport where events take place and then after the fact results are changed. This can surely be done when new information comes to light after the fact, but my understanding is that the information was present on the day. The impacts of the inferred right to just change the result by the controller up to 4 weeks later has massive implications - any event that is a trial cannot have the results used for up to 4 weeks for selection purposes, because the results may change. If you win a race, you need to wait 4 weeks before you can be confident that you have truly won the race. The intent on the discussion about 4 weeks is what is important in my view, and that intent is that when new information comes to light after the event. And Duncan, no I am not the Technical Committee, but I am an A-grade controller... unlike you. But just to be clear, I do absolutely recommend any controller gets in touch with the Technical Committee if in any doubt on items such as these. So yes Jeff you have some fair points made about the rules themselves. However the complaints process is quite clearly described in the rules under section 27. People need to learn to complain at events formally.   mcroxford Posted: 24 October 2013, 11:05 AM   Right. This is personal opinion and not linked to my role as SuperSeries Co-ordinator at the moment. It is interesting comparing the NZOF rules with those of the IOF. They are essentially the same but with some interesting differences that perhaps need attention. Firstly in the IOF rules they refer to an 'organiser'. They do not define an organiser but the NZOF rules do. In the NZOF rules this person is separate to the Controller. In the IOF rules the organiser does all of the protests etc. In the NZOF rules it is the controller. The second variation is in the section on fair play. Again the NZOF rules generally match the IOF rules except the IOF also have: 26.12 The organiser must stop, and postpone or cancel a race if at any point it becomes clear that circumstances have arisen which make the race dangerous for the competitor, officials or spectators. 26.13 The organiser must void a race if circumstances have arisen which make the race significantly unfair. The second one may be clearer guidance to those running events and perhaps should be adopted at the next AGM? Perhaps also we should take the decision away from the person that perhaps is too close to the specific event?   addison Posted: 24 October 2013, 1:54 PM   Realistically I think this should go offline and for Scott to have a direct conversation with the Technical Committee for advice and for clarification to come from the Technical Committee on that front. Cheers Simon   Tane Cambridge Posted: 24 October 2013, 3:30 PM   I understand that people make mistakes and hope that this does not put the people involved off planning and controlling courses in the future. This might come across fairly harshly... and I intend to mean no harm, but by stating the facts as I see fit it may do that... so I apologise in advance. Realistically the course should have been invalidated. The control was in the wrong place. It effected fairness during the competition on the course in question. The controller effectively agreed that the control was in the wrong place by moving while the competition was in progress. The controller should have invalidated the course when he realised a mistake had been made and the control was in the wrong place - Rule 26.13 Nick (and myself backing him up) should not have needed to complain. Hence why I never really bothered to follow it up with a proper complaint. Nick was put in a position in front of the rest of his peers/fellow competitors and left to make a decision on whether to invalidate the course or not. As far as I believe the proper process was not followed and he was not informed of the outcome of the complaint, he was asked to decide on the outcome. This is not a position a competitor should be put in. It was unfair on Nick, especially effectively being a junior still, and did not really leave him in a position to follow the proper process. The Controller was also informed by the a former member of the technical committee that this was not the correct way to deal with a complaint at the time. And anyway if the proper complaint/protest procedure was followed would the outcome have been any different? Its a shame to invalidate a course, but the reality is people make mistakes. I felt it was a good course and enjoying it up until that one control that was moving while I was hunting for it! We all accept that there is a lot of work put into planning a course but when we all go out and run around we expect that its a fair and level playing field. In this case it was not. Why should the results remain in the record books as if it was a fair course and no one was put to a disadvantage, even when we all knew at the finish that it was not a fair course?   Bryan Posted: 25 October 2013, 12:53 AM   As a newly appointed IOF event advisor (having advised a total number of IOF events of none - so experience of zero) and an A grade controller, based on the IOF and NZOF rules and guidelines as I read them, I feel that competitors have the right to lodge a complaint or protest (to the controller of the event and/or the technical committee) after an event in extraordinary circumstances. The technical committee would have to convene experienced controllers to make a decision. This may seem wrong to people that a result may take some time to be decided, but in the interest of fairness, there will be rare occasions when issues which have been raised takes some time to be resolved. There have been many times in other sports where results have been overturned a long time after the competition (eg Valerie Adams).   scottv Posted: 25 October 2013, 1:07 AM   Hey Simon. I don't see why,in the case of the Auckland Champs, you oppose the idea of delivering a fairer set of results to the competititors when: 1) everybody canvassed thought it, or something similar, was a better outcome 2) the rules seem to allow it (thanks Jeff) 3) the announcement was made only 3 days after the event. I agree that we don't want to see your imaginary example in reality, but in my opinion what happens from this point forward is another issue, and in no way should the decision that has been made here be seen as a precedent. There's enough people on this and the related thread asking for clarity around procedures when things go wrong for controllers and competitors. It would be good if the technical committee reviewed the rules. As a controller I will be changing my own processes. By the way, I'm not angry as I write this, (it's sometimes hard to tell on Email). I've felt like the Mayor of Auckland caught with his pants around his ankles these last few days. But I appreciate from yourself and others that the comments I have seen have been constructive.   Paul I Posted: 25 October 2013, 4:13 AM   Adding a little weight to the other side I struggle a bit with such black and white responses above. I agree that in very high profile races such adherence to the rule, without alternative options, may be justified. To my mind the IOF document on race cancelling highlights both consideration to fairness as well as consideration to the sport,unaffected runners, organisers as well as the size of the error should be discussed and taken into account. It clearly states that voiding a race is an option that should be avoided if at all possible. A couple of options that are occasionally bandied about are a) taking the result as of the previous control and b) removing the problem control as well as the following control. Yes I can hear the screams of resistance already... it's still not fair because of this or that. Taking the Auckland Middle race concerned either of these two options would have had the same result which to me looked like a fair result of the entire race. Personally I prefer the b) option of removing the two control splits as this still allows for the final part of the race to count, and most of the collateral damage has been removed. Yes this is still open to if's and but's but I think these are very marginal, and hey an orienteering race always includes some aspects of luck. There would be far more fairness/unfairness issues such as some runners leading others into controls or not, pack running /following etc. I would much rather see this sort of compromise made to get a fair-ish result for the majority of races in nz. Having a standard practice of how to remedy a problem would at least let athletes know never to give up if a control is wrong, and the controllers and affected persons would have to have less on their shoulders. I am in no way trying to say mistakes are acceptable, but they do happen. At this rate where problems are debated for all to see a lot of people will be put off sticking their hand up in fear of humiliation. Sometimes we take life too seriously IMO. Thanks Scott, loved the event. This message was edited by Paul I on 25 October 2013, 12:19 PM   scottv Posted: 25 October 2013, 4:35 AM   Thanks Paul. Hi Tane I thought I was following the right process. No formal complaint was received so I thought it fell on me to make a call. As I said previously I was just trying to get the best outcome for the competitors. Nobody said to me this wasn't the correct process. In fact, I had the support of 2 senior controllers on the day. Anyway sorry about your run. I hope you can make up for it this weekend.