 Paul I
|
Posted: 25 October 2013, 5:00 AM
As far as changing the result after the fact; actually the fact was that the control was wrong, and so if you apply the removal of said control and the one after, analysing splits show evidence that this new result would be a true picture of the race where no placing's changed due to dubious scenarios. And if so why does it matter so much on this occasion if the official result now changes after consideration to this. (Though I do see that a clearer guideline needs to be in place so that this is not setting a precedent).
|
|
janeharding
|
Posted: 25 October 2013, 5:13 AM
Clear message to everyone for future reference. Event organisers need to advertise/display the complaints procedure and no athlete should be discouraged or made to feel uncomfortable about complaining. There is no stigma attached to registering a complaint in good faith and having it clarified for all concerned. Controllers and organisers should be transparent and open about this at all times. (and I have to declare an interest as well)
|
|
DMjunior
|
Posted: 25 October 2013, 7:09 AM
Thanks for the advice Simon. I wouldn't mind a chat if you wanted to call me so I can fully understand what you are getting at? I wasn't sure where it said on this forum that you needed to be an A grade controller to comment on this? All I'm doing is saying what I think. Obviously you don't think that I'm qualified to comment on this much like your side kick Pete in the other forum. Anyways a discussion would be nice.
|
|
Chris Forne
|
Posted: 26 October 2013, 8:28 AM
My thoughts...
A) - a really great orienteering weekend, most enjoyable, regardless of what the "official" results end up being.
B) - If the controller is aware that there is a problem with the course, they should make a decision independent of whether anyone comes forward and complains about it.
C) - In this situation, the control was close to the end of the course, so finishing the course at the control before or removing it from the splits should be relatively fair to all competitors. Otherwise it should be invalidated. I would be embarrassed to see the original results standing.
D) - I don't think anyone will mind that the official results weren't out straight away given the circumstances.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 28 October 2013, 12:54 PM
My apologies for not firstly recommending that Scott discusses this directly with the Technical Committee which should have been his first point of reference.
The rules as read do allow for controller discretion, but in an instance such as this rule 31.4 does allow for official consultation with the Technical Committee.
|
|
scottv
|
Posted: 15 November 2013, 11:39 AM
This matter was referred to the Technical Commitee, and I have received their final response, which in relation to the course results is as follows: "the grades that have had protests against them should be invalidated as per the rules, these being M21E and W21E". (The W21E protest was received by Email 6 days after the event).
I accept their advice and so M21E and W21E courses are now invalidated.
|
|
hughff
|
Posted: 15 November 2013, 1:25 PM
I think that's a little sad.
If I had had a great run and found the entire course invalidated because of one misplaced control, I'd be angry. In this age of electronic split times, it's at least as unfair to wipe out the course as it is to wipe out a single control and it costs everyone an event.
|
|
hughff
|
Posted: 15 November 2013, 1:27 PM
PS. I'm aware of the irony of me commenting on 21E races, especially at an event I didn't attend.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 18 November 2013, 8:05 AM
Good call.
Was there any comment from the technical committee regarding the role of a controller in the situation of a control clearly being in the wrong position?
Should the controller invalidate the course, or should it be left to athletes to complain?
|
|
mcroxford
|
Posted: 18 November 2013, 11:50 AM
Good question Jamie. Perhaps a briefing note should be prepared and distributed?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 18 November 2013, 3:39 PM
There are many circumstances around a faulty control location, faulty map, and extent of "damage" to the results. Even though the map was clearly wrong, the jury decision at the 2012 sprint used IOF guidance on when to invalidate. I have been waiting for a controllers newsletter to help us all make these decisions. The last one I can find is dated Nov 2001.
|
|
Taupoite
|
Posted: 19 November 2013, 10:44 AM
One of the things I found useful was the interpretation IOF put out on cancelling a competition - clarification of rules 26.12 and 26.13. http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Cancelling-a-competition.pdf
#9 and the particularly first bullet point seems to be the most appropriate guide.
|
|
hughff
|
Posted: 20 November 2013, 6:59 AM
Interesting document, Chris. There are two passages I want to quote.
Firstly
19. Many, probably the majority, of hypothetical situations involve problems with a single control or course leg. Rule 24.15 ( The results must be based on competitors times for the whole course. No changes may be made to these times on the basis of split times. ) prohibits a result being declared on the basis of part of a course only. This rule has been introduced because analysis of what happens when you remove one or more legs from the times shows that it usually introduces as much unfairness as it solves.
I would like to see that analysis as it seems counter-intuitive. I can't help but feel that this is applying a clip card solution to a sport ident event.
Secondly, from the appendix of "hypothetical examples":
3. In the WOC long-distance final, a control is put on the wrong boulder, 30m from (and not visible from) the correct boulder. Many runners lose between 1 and 10 minutes, although a few runners find the control without any problem because it is on one of the approach routes to the correct boulder.
This renders the competition unfair. The competition must be voided.
Clearly, this is much the same as the events at the Auckland champs so the response of the technical committee is exactly as directed by the IOF. However, then there's this...
6. In one of the qualification heats for a JWOC final, a control is missing when early competitors reach that point. It is in place for subsequent runners.
Let any affected competitors run in the final in addition to those who qualified properly.
I wonder what would have been the IOF's repsonse to this example if it was not a qualifying round - void or not. In many of the other hypothetical examples it makes it clear that if fewer than 10% of competitiors are affected then the results should stand: would this mean that if 9% of competitors had the misplaced control and 91% had the accurate control, would the IOF say, "Game on."?
|
|
Taupoite
|
Posted: 20 November 2013, 12:30 PM
My take on the rules is that IOF recognise mistakes do happen, even at events with multiple levels of control, and that a tainted result is better than none at all. Declaring the event invalid should be the last resort. If the favourites are the ones disadvantaged, then they void. If you aren't one of them, and not too many others are affected, then just tough.
Some time when I get bored, I will take results from a number of events and see what effect dropping pairs of legs would have. However, I believe this would be too artificial to give something that could be used for real life decision making. My impression would be that if someone had spent some time looking for a control that was in the wrong place, then that would affect both their judgement and speed for the rest of the course. Dropping legs may create more inequities than it solves.
|
|
jeffg
|
Posted: 21 November 2013, 5:21 AM
The IOF recommendations are pretty black and white, and Chris has summed up the reasons well in his last post.
Can I suggest for the purpose of this discussion:
The AKL Champs situation is a little bit different, as the proposed solution was not to remove a control/split from the course, but to truncate the course at a late point just before a misplaced control. The truncated course is fair up to that point, but the question to be answered is not so much one of fairness, but how worthy that truncated course is of a regional championship in middle distance.
Looking at it this way, in this case the final decision is probably the correct one: the course(s) were entering a highly technical area that was distinct from what had gone before. Removal of the area from the course(s) weakened the overall challenge sufficiently to justify invalidation rather than truncation. But what if the slightly shortened course already had several controls in that area? I think you'd have a strong(er) argument for truncation.
|
© Ruffneck Productions