in: Orienteering; News;
| # Posted 2008-08-10 04:37:09 | |
| graeme: | The sun is shining on the Laramie range, and one day of the champs at Diamond Bay is done.
The terrain was unpleasant thick, green, swampy and slow. Mosquitos hang thick in the sky and machetes were the order of the day (Hang on, this can't be right...) Back in reality, it was fantastic, everything we've come to expect from this orienteering Mecca (if you can have a Mecca out West). Mikell's map was superb and the contrasting open plains and granite rocky terrain kept everyone on their toes. A proper championship testing everying, and very enjoyable at the same time. I think Hawkins and Zurcher won, in around an hour, but the top times were close and tomorrow's longer course may be decisive. There were a lot of foreigners moving fast on blue (with me trying to rectify the balance). I think Zhyk may have been quickest US man (edit: wrong, Hawkins is US eligible). But possibly the sun 10km and a few senior moments are affecting my recall. The last time I ran US champs blue was in 1988... |
| # Posted 2008-08-10 08:27:31 | |
| bbrooke: | Day 1 results have just been posted on the event web site. Thanks very much to J-J Coté and Nancy Koehler for compiling the results so quickly.
Day 1 Results |
| # Posted 2008-08-10 23:15:47 | |
| chitownclark: | I'm not sure how he does it, but PG has already scanned his Green-X map and route for Saturday.
Very nice for us couch potatoes not in Laramie to see the terrain these people are dealing with this weekend, despite the distraction of the Olympics on the other channel. Note that there really is a "Diamond Bay," and the runners crossed over it going to #13...wonder what that speckled brown dot screen is supposed to indicate? |
| # Posted 2008-08-11 05:56:15 | |
| PG: | Just take a photo of the map.... Note that the colors on the photo are a little off. The speckled brown dot screen was actually a speckled black dot screen, stony ground.
Day 2 is also posted. |
| # Posted 2008-08-11 05:58:59 | |
| PG: | And the winners for the weekend were Sandra Zürcher and Will Hawkins. |
| # Posted 2008-08-11 09:51:22 | |
| JanetT: | Excellent job by LROC (Mikell), RMOC, the results team, and Donna Fluegel (meet director, working from Western CT!) and all the volunteers who made the week and weekend go so well (okay, with some inconveniences for a few).
The thunderstorm held off long enough for the award ceremony to finish, though I suspect the folks left behind for control pickup weren't pleased by the downpour which followed. |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 07:43:09 | |
| bbrooke: | I received the Day 2 and Overall results from J-J about a half-hour ago. I need to bike home before it gets dark, and then I'll have them posted to the web site within an hour or so. Stay tuned!!! |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 13:15:26 | |
| bbrooke: | Alrighty -- Day 2 and Overall results are posted.
Results |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 20:15:20 | |
| kissy: | Thanks, Brooke! And thanks for all of the work you did this week. I saw first-hand everything you had to keep track of, all of the questions you had to answer, all of the "stuff" you had to transport, etc. You and Troy were invaluable, and you both deserve a long respite from O-administration! |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 20:23:54 | |
| Ricka: | Thank you - a well run event! |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 22:42:38 | |
| bbrooke: | Thanks, Kissy. I'm starting to decompress now that I'm home. My "real" job actually seems a little less stressful in comparison. ;-) |
| # Posted 2008-08-12 22:47:12 | |
| danf: | Thanks Brooke, JJ, Donna, and everyone else who helped out LROC put on such a fine, fun event! |
| # Posted 2008-08-13 02:06:46 | |
| jjcote: | Apologies for the mixup at the awards ceremony, which was entirely my fault. I could have sworn that I had checked the box on the computer to sort only the US-eligible finishers, but I hadn't (I was rushing because of the approaching thunderstorm). Consequently, I announced some people who were foreigners, and thus left off some US medalists. The lists now posted on the web are correct (as far as we know), as were the results as posted on the string (with one exception that I know of, unrelated reason). Anybody who got the wrong medal, or who didn't get a medal (either because I didn't announce their name, or because they left before the awards), let us know and we'll get the medals to you. |
| # Posted 2008-08-13 04:09:37 | |
| khall: | Wish I could have been there - it sure looked fun.
I have to say that my spirits rose quite a few notches when I looked at the field of F20s (loads of them) and how well they ran! The future of US Women's Orienteering is looking good!! Well done girls/young ladies! (and the F21s too :-) |
| # Posted 2008-08-13 21:21:14 | |
| feet: | There were some impressive times in M20 as well. |
| # Posted 2008-08-14 04:50:12 | |
| Sergey: | M20 and F20 athletes were real surprise during past weekend. Very impressive results, as well as Sandra's and Sam's! And feet's too :) |
| # Posted 2008-08-15 14:12:38 | |
| catherineols: | I must say, we F-20s surprised *ourselves* with our prolific numbers. Never before have so many of us been in the same place at once! Having all of us there truly served to heighten the spirit of friendly competition among us. Glad to know we can be an inspiration to others. Hopefully this, along with the success of the Northwest Forest Frenzy the week before, will lift the spirits of anyone concerned about the future of US Orienteering - we juniors can do great things, both on the course and behind-the-scenes, when called upon! |
| # Posted 2008-08-15 19:15:17 | |
| gordhun: | In the US Champs results I know what DNF, DNS, OVT, MSP etc stand for but what is the meaning of SPW? It appears once. (Slow Poke in Wyoming? I don't think so.) |
| # Posted 2008-08-15 19:25:59 | |
| skdewitt: | Sporting withdrawal. |
| # Posted 2008-08-15 21:41:57 | |
| jjcote: | In this case, a sporting withdrawal because the person in question received a defective map (right cluesheet, wrong course). There was the possibility of voiding the class for the day, but the agreement arrived at was for him to be given a SPW, which means that he would get credit for a race (if he needed one to be ranked), but otherwise it's like a DNS. It also meant that he was out of contention for the championship, which is unfortunate, because he was a serious contender. A couple of other people on that course were affected, but they returned to the start, got new maps, and started over. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 04:37:56 | |
| chitownclark: | Does anyone care to comment on this ruling in this particular case?
Having been an A-meet director, I'm interested in this type of problem, and its resolution. Pertinent paragraphs from USOF Rules for Competiton follow: 17. Jury: 17.8 When in response to a protest the Jury determines that a rule has been broken and the effect on the results is minor and only a few competitors have been affected, then the Jury may allow, request or require a "Sporting Withdrawal" (SPW) by the affected competitors. 17.8.1 Competitors who have made a "Sporting Withdrawal" will have their results posted as "SPW" and will be able to use their attendance to qualify for ranking (Section 50.11) but will not be eligible for placing or awards at the meet. They may, however, be recognized when appropriate. 17.8.2 Competitors may not elect a "Sporting Withdrawal" (as used in these rules) without the consent of the jury. 50. National Rankings: 50.3 Daily ranking points can also be earned by .... ...c) Being assigned a "Sporting Withdrawal", as in section 17.8. If this issue was put to bed up there at Diamond Bay, I certainly don't wish to reopen it, since I wasn't even there. But for the benefit of calibrating future jury actions, how was the effect on results deemed to be "minor?" |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 04:49:53 | |
| bbrooke: | Does anyone care to comment on this ruling in this particular case?
What's to comment on? According to the USOF rule you cited, it was well within the jury's discretion to award the SPW to the person who was affected by the map error. I don't see this as a controversial decision at all. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 04:55:57 | |
| chitownclark: | Well, as I understand it, the guy that "withdrew," in such a sporting manner, might have medaled...and pushed most of the others in his age group down a notch. Would that effect on the results still be termed "minor?" |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 04:56:54 | |
| eddie: | It sounds like more than one person was affected, and now it sounds like there was a protest and a jury decision. I believe what chitown is asking for are the details. Can you please tell us what happened? What was the protest, what was the jury ruling?
In any case, it seems to me that more than one (or even a few) were affected, since those few got some advantage from having seen the (wrong) map ahead of time and been given a new start. It sounds like they did not get SPWs, so what about all the others on that course who have been wronged by competing against folks who had an unfair advantage? Plese fill us in. Thanks. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 05:20:59 | |
| bbrooke: | Yes, there was a protest and a jury decision.
As J-J stated, three or four Green-X runners picked up a map out of the correct box (Green-X), with the correct clue sheet identifying it on the back (Green-X), but with the wrong map in the case (Green-Y). Several of the runners figured out the problem at varying points along their course, came back to the start, and went back out on the correct course. From what I heard (third-hand), Glen was able to sort of figure out his course with the clue sheet he had, by assuming the Green-X controls would be near the Green-Y controls shown on his map. So, he finished the course, but with a big disadvantage. The one affected person I talked to personally (Sverre Froyen) figured out the problem at the fifth control, so he returned to the start and started over. I suspect that any advantage he might've gained from seeing the map before he went back out on his correct course was probably cancelled out by the frustration and psych-out factor of being given the wrong map, as well as by the extra physical exertion of climbing that steep area up to #4 at ~8,000' elevation. (And then going all the way back to the start from that point.) Yeah, there are competing factors of fairness to consider in terms of medals and rankings -- but I assume that's one reason we have juries, to make judgement calls in ambiguous scenarios. What other outcome would have been more fair? Throw out the whole course for everyone? Maybe that would be appropriate in some scenarios, but in this case, what I heard was that Glen was generously amenable to the SPW compromise. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 05:29:35 | |
| bbrooke: | p.s. You could consider it "minor" in terms of the number of people affected (three or four out of 66 on Green-Y) -- although I'm sure it wasn't "minor" to Glen. It also wasn't minor to Mikell, who was deeply regretful and upset about what happened. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 07:51:48 | |
| mindsweeper: | I think one lesson learned is to always print the course name on the map itself. I specifically asked the start crew to verify that the map was correct, and was told that they couldn't because they could only be identified by the clue sheet on the back. :) |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 08:11:02 | |
| eddie: | yes, it certainly is important to have an identifier on the map itself. That helps avoid the problem of mismatched clues-on-maps, since the several pre-race vets of all the maps (each map, by hand, multiple sets of eyeballs) would then catch problems like this.
Regarding the SPW issue, according to the rules the jury has the descretion to decide if only a small number of people are affected (which they apparently did), then can "allow, request or require an SPW by the affected competitors." I believe in this case fairness could only be served by *requiring* that the 3 or 4 affected take an SPW. As if they had never started. The remaining 63 runners would be unaffected. As it is, the three who re-started have contaminated the result, which affects all 63, and to some degree all green-X runners in USOF, since the scores from this race go into the national rankings. This is the second such incident in as many A-meets this summer. There was a mishung control on a day 2 green course at the Tahoe meet that affected several runners directly. In that case, the start was closed for about 20 mins, delaying all future starts while they corrected the problem. No one submitted a written protest. So effectivley it never happened. However, the MD offered SPW's to the affected runners. As far as I know, no one took an SPW. Probably the MD didn't have the authority to do this anyways, but since no one protested... So as I see it, all runnerss on that green course, and the associated ranking points from that race have "contaminated" the USOF rankings to some degree. Two incidents in two A-meets is pretty significant. I think in both cases the best thing for the rankings would have been to void both courses. As it is I hear quite a bit of grumbling about what the USOF rankings really mean. In the case of M/F-21, the rankings are used to select the WOC team, and its important that they be as "clean" as possible, methodology arguments aside. In reality this is true across all classes, as many people (myself included) take the rankings pretty seriously. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 08:22:45 | |
| GlenT: | I requested that the jury allow me to take a SPW. It was the right decision at the time and remains so. I'm not aware of anyone else filing a protest, so there was no need for the jury to make any decisions regarding anyone else.
Most of us orienteer primarily for our own entertainment, so in the grand scheme of things, where we finish on a given day or in a given year really isn't all that important. Mistakes happen, it was handled fairly and it's time to move on. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 08:23:08 | |
| hammer: | Looks like awesome and fun terrain.
Congrats to Will and Sandra. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 08:46:28 | |
| eddie: | Well, it was not my course, so it would be up to the 66 runners on that course (and perhaps the 100 or so green runners who weren't there but are potentially affected). I assume all 66 runners on that course were informed of the incident so they could decide if they wanted to take any action. If it hadn't come up in this thread probably no one would have even known there was a protest, other than those directly involved. I would have assumed a lone SPW was for the "assisting an injured runner" reason. |
| # Posted 2008-08-16 10:24:06 | |
| jjcote: | I quit. You people carry on with this stupid |
| # Posted 2008-08-17 00:49:52 | |
| graeme: | In Britain we get 10 seconds to check we have the right maps before start. I guess you dont, since I got a scowl for doing this on day 1. This transfers the "fault" in having the wrong map from organiser to competitor, which makes the jury decision a lot easier.
It would be hard for a competitor to spot this particular error, so whether its a better system overall is open to debate. If it happened to me I'd prefer a SPW to a DSQ, so it seems to me you made the right decision. PS Graeme's tip for the top: Dont go hang gliding off the Steppin' stone on Pelican Bay. Especially not without a hang glider :( |
| # Posted 2008-08-17 10:53:12 | |
| Ricka: | Graeme: I hope that your Steepin' Stone PS was not based on personal experience or route choice :). Also, yes in US we are not allowed to 'check our maps' before the start, but we can and do ask start personnell to 'check my map'. Without printed clues or name of course on map, this was not practical - glitch - probably because glued clue sheet on back was to be our check.
Many Green X runners were well aware of the protest and we did discuss its implications - see above. No one else saw sufficient cause to protest. |
| # Posted 2008-08-17 14:55:49 | |
| LOST_Richard: | I would also like to add my thanks to all the organisers, setters, mappers etc of the event. I was able to "drop in" on a business trip and drove through from Denver to Salt lake City. I enjoyed Day 1 more than Day 2 with just enough bush to keep the visibility down.
On the protest issue, we have similar lengthy debates in OZ when things gone wrong, I am impressed with the concept of SPW which I do not think exists in Australia. Of course when things go wrong then individuals are effected but for most Orienteers we are not playing for "sheep stations' (which I guess translates to Cattle Ranch!) and as a beneficiary of the decision I applaud all those who took this approach. |
| # Posted 2008-08-26 20:59:53 | |
| coach: | As one of the runners on Green X with Glen, I want to thank him and the jury for resolving the problem in the manner they did. It is likely Glen would have medaled and finished ahead of myself for the weekend.
ALthough tossing day 1 would not have diminished my overall fun, it still can leave a bad feeling at the time. |
| # Posted 2008-08-26 23:44:11 | |
| PG: | Absolutely a class act by Glen (who seems to have been orienteering better and better this year). |
You must be logged in to add a message
.jpg){kind=link}