Discussion: Nine Mispunches in one heat

So what was the story about the nine mispunches in the womens' qualification heat in the Sprint? I never saw any explanation of this surprising happening.

I think it would be useful to understand what happened for course planners and for competitors

Three controls in a straight line - nine runners didnt see the middle one and missed it out.

That helps explain my MP in Scotland...I, too, had 3 in a line & failed to see the middle one, still wondering why though:-).

Without looking at the WOC situation, I'd guess the circles were close together & map background was not particularly white (as in navigable woods), making circle(s) harder to see...?

My checking of the splits and courses does not come close to substantiating this explanation. I don't have time now to describe my all observations, but the story appears to be far more complex. I suspect course printing clarity, coupled with an unusual (not necessarily bad) leg explains more mispunches (three at W1, #12) than the straight line rational, but that is based on the poor assumption that the Route Gadget course printing is the same as the competitor's maps. The W3 qual had 4 controls (6-7-8-9)in a straighter line than anything in W1 and I don't think that produced any MP/DQ's. I rushed through this and might have an error or two, but not 9 errors.

I am not sure what Eric means about an unusual leg, but the map printing explanation may make sense.

I don't have an actual course map from W1, but this map may indicate how the control circle was drawn on the competitors' maps. Did they have to cut the circle on the only places it crossed more legible white paper because those were where passages existed? It seems like that may have happened.

From the World of O WOC Sprint article:

Here is a "master" of all three women's qual sprints.

Here is the official results page and the Sprint W1 splits.

It's not apparent what the problem is. There are multiple mispunches on various controls:

7 (1mp)
12 (3mp)
15 (2mp)
16 (3mp)

(It took me a while to figure out a mispunch shows as 2 blanks followed by a single blank.) The splits don't show control codes (31, 32, etc). Is the W1 more complicated in the last few controls? It's hard to tell from the map with all three courses.

Has anyone seen the actual Sprint W1 map? It's not clear to me that the three-in-a-row argument is holding water.

{edit---This is the heat that Samantha and Miss Jones ran. I looked at Eva Jurenikova's blog, but she hasn't posted it.}

Sam ran in that heat, perhaps we can cajole her to scan and post...

I ran in heat B and had a really hard time figuring out what was going on for the last few controls. It was pretty confusing, especially since it was at the end, when everyone's brain was pretty oxygen-deprived. I thought it was mostly a good course setting idea - a few seemingly easy controls in park area at the end, with everyone able to see people darting around. But it's possible that the numbering of the controls on the heat A was less clear than on the others, which could contribute to more mispunches.

I know it seems weird, but I wouldn't be surprised if this really was just coincidence.

apologies for the misinformation - a reminder not to repeat something on hearsay

On the blog of Celine Dodin, she talks about two controls one after the other with the same definition. I believe it is controls 96 and 87 but the layout with the 3 courses is barely readable. Only explains the 3 mps at control 16 though.

Based on a few 'time on leg' comparisons, it is clear that heat #1 with 9 mispunches is Women A, the dashed route.

#12 is control #84: The circle and # for 84 are mostly in olive green. Easy not to see it? And #11-#12-#13 or #81, #84, and #85 are near linear.

#15 is control #96. #96 and #95 are both in field and very close to each other. #96 is green circle; #95 is black x. On 23 second leg near end of course, easy not to check clue or code?

#16 is control #97. #96 and #97 are only 10 sec apart, each on a green circle with the 17th control in sight only 12 sec away. Easy to forget which green circle you just left?

Note: I used heat winner Elise's times. Note that she ran 4 consecutive legs in a total time of 59 sec.

Looking at Women's B and C, the last few controls avoided these 'oddities'.

It is interesting that Men B did have the first 'oddity'. They had three mispunches; one each at controls #8, #14, and #17. #14 was the same mistake.

Men A had the third 'oddity'. Men A had 2 mispunches, one each at #13 and #19. #19 was the same mistake.

Men did not have the black x control, the second oddity.

I hope that all data is accurate :)

Although I ran the course, I can't really tell you why so many people mispunched. The map and numbers looked fine to me. I inserted a picture but it's hard to see. #12 is more obvious on my real map, as it's darker. But this is how the numbers and lines were drawn. I believe one difference is that heat 1 had two controls in a row on trees at the end. The other two heats had a controls on different features. That might explain the mispunches on #15 and #16. I can't tell from the splits if people skipped #12 or punched something different (although there weren't any other controls in sight. Also what they mapped as a rock I remember being a stone well...). Mostly I just think it's one of those weird flukes. This configuration of controls isn't unusual. Personally I think heat 2 is harder to read because of three controls near each other.

I checked another control first at #12 - it was to the south east of the circle, on the building perhaps? I was a bit confused with the fences and hadn't gone far enough to my control. I also checked another control before my #15 - on one of the black crosses (a bbq from memory). My HUGE mistake was at #14, grr!

I'm willing to go with the "coincidence" explanation, recognizing that this is pushing the probability.

My "unusual leg" comment was actually a mistake. On my initial review, I failed to see the fence corner opening NE of W1 #11, so I perceived this as a completely "back door" leg, with no straight ahead or side attack options. However W3 11-12 actually is this type of a leg, unless my eyes are continuing to fail me.

I have no problem with back-door-only legs, in fact I think they are a neat change of pace. On the other hand, this experience reinforces my discomfort with sprint legs that hinge on openings, or lack of openings, that are right at the edge of perception.

In this case I was mentally rushing, somewhat like a competitor, but sitting still with an enlarged version of the map on my screen, and failed to see the opening, while looking for one. I wonder if the gap in this case meets the min gap spec of the ISSOM, although I don't feel like taking the time now.

This is the stuff of nightmares if I was a competitor or setter, basically the difference between a successful or unsuccessful race at this level, and I am uncomfortable providing this as a setter/ consultant/controller, because as a competitor, I would feel unfairly screwed by this. In any format, I don't think a single leg should play such a dominant role in the results. To me, visually conservative Sprint O's can still have plenty of interest, intensity, and seperating factors.

Admittedly, I haven't heard any adverse comments about these specific courses, nor from many others in general, on this issue.

I think the course was set just fine. It doesn't seem like they were trying to trick people. I think that as a runner it's your responsibility to check your codes and read the map closely enough to see all the controls - no matter what the course setters throw at you. That being said, I have certainly made both those mistakes before!

Minimum gap for a crossing point in a continuous impassable fence or wall should be 0.9mm, and it should be emphasised by a gate symbol. However, does this apply for a gap between two fences that would otherwise meet at an angle, as in Samantha's map? The ISSOM doesn't specifically address this situation, but I would argue that for fairness' sake the gate symbol should have been used.

Hm, that last bunch of controls is a lot easier to read than the cluster of three (11-15-16) near each other in heat B. Weird.

I'm pretty sure that W3 11-12 is a back-door leg. If it wasn't, I would be a bit frustrated because I had that leg myself.

The gap in the fence is not a gate. The fence stops just short of the other large fence.

When i was running i didn't see the gap until i was right ontop of it.

Doesn't have to be a gate. ISSOM states: A crossing point is a gap or an opening in a fence, railing or wall, which can easily be passed by a competitor. Small gaps or openings which can not easily be passed by competitors, shall not be represented on the map and shall be closed during the competition.'
The symbol shown next to this is 525, two lines perpendicular to the fence, with a gap between.

How come the bent line between controls 12 and 13 in the map above is allowed in our most high-profile event? The map specification clearly states that "the start, control points and finish are joined together by straight lines" and also "Sections of lines should be omitted to leave important detail showing." Still it seems like Sweden is the only country where we follow this rule.

Personally I find the bent lines (and this is nowhere near the worst example) really annoying and they make it more difficult to make the correct routechoice.

Of course this is a bit offtopic since I don't think anybody mispunched because of the bent line, but still I'm interested in your opinions.

I think the bent line in this case actually enhances clarity.

It's a straight line with a bulge, which makes it obvious that you're not going to 16. I'm not sure that you could argue that a straight line with a bulge fits the mapping standard, but at least it's not two angled lines.