Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2  

New Technology and Invalidating a course

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 24 May 2007, 4:48 AM  
After being a silent observer of the discussion on protesting, bad controls and the Super Series, I'm wondering if our rules need to be changed.

I have never protested but I probably would if it was a National champs and I felt the course was very unfair.
I would still be very reluctant to protest with our current rules as I know the amount of work organisers do
for events. I just think that with SportIdent we can lesson the damage of an upheld protest and still get a result.

My brother Bill has just planned the British champs and unfortunately placed a control in an unmapped depression but the courses weren't invalidated as the times for the bad control were just removed from the total times to still get a result.

Maybe the NZOF should amend the rules so that this can be done in major events where Sportident is used.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 24 May 2007, 4:50 AM  
You have got to be kidding

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:00 AM  
How can that be fair?

What about the scenario where one guy sprints around for 15 min, wastes all his energy while someone else stumbles on it in 1min. They then both continue on with whatever energy they still have left in the tank. Fair? NO.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:19 AM  
I agree it's not totally fair and I realised this when I floated the idea. I said that this could 'lesson the damage'.

Britain is certainly allowing this kind of correction and its a way of still getting a result even though some would view it as a 'clayton's result'.

Show Profile  SimonB Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:31 AM  
what's a claytons result?

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:37 AM  
It does't sound fair but it could be better that canning the whole thing, provided it does not encourage prolific growth of protests!
If you were to apply Bryan's theory to the Tamoc Race I talked about on the SS thread, remove both controls that I (and others) found dodgy - I was coming 5th just before these controls, take off my 30min lost time, then take off 9 minutes (rough average of top 10) off every one else, then I would probably have finished in about 5th place! But yes, I was pretty #$%@'d physically and mentaly from all the searching, infact so much that I had further problems with the following control also. I was not really giving it 100% after that, so in theory could have finished better than the hypothetical 5th which would mean that yes the dodgy controls took a lot out of me, especially when you consider that I was coming 5th only just b4 the suspect controls because of a self impossed brain lapse, prior to that I had been leading the race.
Remembering that my example is quite extreme because it involved two controls in thick tiresome undergrowth, in this case no Bryans suggestion is not really fair, however coming 5th would definately be preferrable to the 30th or whatever I ended up with!

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:37 AM  
Its not just the split to the control, its also the split after as a lot of elites won't hunt around for a control if its not there, or in the wrong place...they'll just bail, hence the impossibility of measuring the second split

Theres also the problem with the grouping that will inevitably happen, ie A hunts round for a control B arrives, C arrives then they'll give up and go off together..

However, there could be situations where it works...what is the rule in the UK?

We had a situation like this in the 1st pinestars test match in australia, two legs ended up being removed from the official results

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 24 May 2007, 6:43 AM  
Aussie beer is Clayton's beer.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 24 May 2007, 8:29 AM  
Paul, I collected those controls and found them piece of cake Tough but achievable.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 24 May 2007, 8:38 AM  
Either I'm loosing it or you are a true legend

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 24 May 2007, 8:42 AM  
Whether they were bingo or they were not isn't really the point. There is a protest committee. They will decide whether a protest should be upheld or not. Why would the new rule create a rash of protests...wouldn't that mean there are several protestable cock-ups being made at the moment and nothing is being done about them. Don't you trust the the protest committee to sort the shit from the relevent?

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 24 May 2007, 8:46 AM  
The other possibility is that you are such a crap orienteer that you never went to the right locations and just fluked it.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 24 May 2007, 9:09 AM  
Neil, I think most people are more inclined to just suck ip up, no one wants to be seen as a sore loser, whether valid or not.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 24 May 2007, 9:53 AM  
Bryan's idea has been discussed in NZ before and dismissed because a problem has an unpredictable effect on the rest of the race. Even using the part of the race prior to the problem isn't great, as particularly in the long there are various approaches to speed throughout the race. Interesting to hear that BOF and OA are doing it.

Actually, I don't think there's any guidance on this in our rules is there? If not, what to do about a protest that the jury thinks is justifiable might be up to that jury. That's a worry, we might get some juries using part of the race and others feeling they must declare "no result".

Show Profile  Keith Posted: 24 May 2007, 12:28 PM  
I couldn't belive the outcome of the british orienteering champs W21E course. I don't think that just removing time from the course was the correct decision. Someone should've protested and the course been invalidated. I'm pretty much thinking down gregs lines on this one!!

The relevant BOF rule is rule 2.7

Dicussion about BOC champs

Discussion about missing controls

I think it would be very wrong to start removing splits from results for reasons stated above.

Show Profile  SimonB Posted: 24 May 2007, 1:38 PM  
keith mate!

1   2  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions