Discussion: Protests requesting removal of leg splits

At the Australian MTBO long distance champs last year, I was chair of a jury considering a protest requesting the removal of splits for one control from the result. While the jury acknowledged that there were problems with the mapping causing some competitors to lose time at the control, we felt bound by the OA guideline that it is almost always wrong to 'remove' a problem control from the electronic results. The choice facing us therefore was whether to void the course, and as a significant number of competitors had not been affected, we dismissed the protest.

Today, via World of O I noticed that the BOF had recently had a similar situation at the British Champs. In this case the Organiser had removed the leg splits for one control from the results after a complaint, but then after a protest from other competitors, the jury reversed this decision and the original result stood. The British Rules Group has supported the jury's decision, and states "removing leg splits is not an appropriate course of action. It is impossible to predict how the overall results were affected by the wrongly placed controls, and therefore to remove the leg splits would not necessarily provide a fairer result than the finishing order on the day."
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/asp/newsfind... has a link to the BOF Rules Group announcement.

I wonder if there are any situations where leg splits might be removed, and if not why doesn't IOF (and all member federations) have a definite rule preventing it. I suspect that other organisers/juries around the world have succumbed to pressure from some competitors to remove leg splits - particularly from elites, and in my view it just should not happen.

A further interesting point from the British Champs was that after finding out that the control was in the wrong spot the Controller went out and moved the control to the correct spot half way through the event. This resulted in half the competitors having to find a control in the wrong spot, a few having to find the control as it was moving and the rest having the control in the right spot. Surely this should not be allowed and written into the rules as well.

I think the IOF and many member federations are lagging behind technology and haven't updated their rules to reflect changes in the sport with electronic punching. Once everybody has caught up I expect it will be written into them that leg splits must not be removed.

> Once everybody has caught up I expect it will be written
> into them that leg splits must not be removed.

I always struggle with the logic of this. If everyone knows that leg splits will be removed if there is an error, then it seems to me that is the preferable option to the only alternative of voiding the course. Help me. What am I missing. The explanation on the BOF site sounds like the sort of gobbledygook I used to write for Ministerial Correspondence when the Minister hasn't a leg to stand on but wants to sound as if logic is on his (or her) side.

The problem with removing splits becoming the norm if something goes wrong is that there will be someone who abuses this knowledge. What is to stop somebody taking the next leg particularly easy, reading ahead for the entirety of the rest of the course, taking time over that difficult route choice, working out the detail near that particularly technical control etc - all because they know that leg will be removed from the results? Especially if an error becomes apparent early on in the competition and later starters find out about it before they start on their course.

When a National Championship is at stake, then clearly removal of splits is not an option, and the course should either stand or be voided. However, I would have hoped enough care and attention would have been taken in the first place to ensure that a mistake such as a misplaced control should not be occurring at a major event like the British Champs. I also feel that, at the lower end of the competition structure, the removal of splits may be a possible solution when there is little/nothing at stake.

Thi sis an interesting Baysesian decision problem. I'm not saying removal of splits is good management, but I am wondering if the claims of unfairness are overstated.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes later runners have perfect knowledge. The assumption here is that later runners know the result of a protest before they start. I would never trust the conclusions of early runners. I have seen more examples of claims of misplaced controls being rejected than accepted. Taking it easy is a very risky strategy on the leg to the problem control. On the leg after the problem control, all runners have the same information. You then have to trust your judgement.

Of course, better not to have the mistake in the first place.

The argument relies on someone reaching a control site and knowing that it is *definitely* misplaced, not necessarily on the information from earlier runners. If a runner knows that the standard procedure in the situation of a misplaced control is to remove the splits either side of said control, then the system is open to abuse as described above. If it is the responsibility of a jury to decide the outcome, then are you risking it if you think you can take it easy for the next control.

In the case of the British Champs, I was one of five runners to convene in the same spot within a minute (2 courses used this control), and were in agreement that the control should have been there - to support us we even found a tape! It was then discovered about 70m off and lower down the slope, in this place none of the surrounding features matched up. I could be sure that the control was in the wrong position, as could the other four runners. Because we did not know what the outcome of any protest would be (my thought was British Champs -> most likely voided course) then we all continued with our runs as normal. Later runners found the control in transit, as the controller was moving it, so knew it *must* have been in the wrong place. If they had known the splits either side were to be removed, who's to say they wouldn't have abused the system?

The other problem with a misplaced control is that it will have an effect on the rest of a person's run, but you can never determine exactly what the influence was. How does it affect their mental state? If said person thinks the control was in the right location when it wasn't are they going to be overly hesitant at the next few controls? Will they think the one big mistake made, through no fault of their own, is enough that they will no longer get on the podium and so ease off for the rest of the race? Will they suddenly up the pace after the "mistake", further risking more errors? In essence, altering the results by removing the splits will most likely still not give a fair and true reflection of the results had all the controls been positioned correctly.

Among the other arguments for not removing splits:
1) It would create a possibility for a competitor to abuse the system by tampering with a control. Imagine someone loses time on a control. He finally finds it, punches, then hides in the shrubbery analyzing the rest of the course. After a couple of additional runners go by, he knocks down the stand and tosses it in a nearby ditch, then continues his run. The control appears to be missing for at least the next few runners, the protest results in the splits to and from the control being eliminated, and our villain gets a substantial benefit.
2) In some places, this would surely result in an increase in sloppiness on the part of organizers. Reduced care in control site choices and control placement, just put a bunch of controls out there, wait for the protests, and let the jury decide which legs actually count.

I'm almost certain that USOF (USA) adopted rules for electronic punching that specifically prohibited removing splits, but in looking over the rules posted on the national website, I don't see that. It's possible that the rules I'm referring to never got officially approved, or more likely, the posted rules have not been updated, since I can't see any reference to electronic punching at all.

Can't resist pushing the logic of this a little more.

1. If the error is in the second last or last control, then the argument about taking advantage of following legs by going easy does not apply if the earlier part of the course remains official.

2. Argument 1 in the post above could equally be rephrased to.. if you know a course will be voided, and have made a bad error, then hide the next control and void the race. If we have to account for this sort of behaviour, the sport is doomed anyway.

3. Organiser motivations are more complex than suggested above. A voided leg is still a reflection on course setter and controller. The embarrassment for many will be just as acute. What a firm and fast rule will do is place event juries between a rock and a hard place. Course cancellation is a major step. It looks like the BOF jury chose the unfairness of a misplaced control over the cancellation of the course. Would voiding 2 legs have been less unfair?

It sounds like I am being difficult, but I think the problem is more complex than a simple prohibition. The solution is not always obvious.

"What a firm and fast rule will do is place event juries between a rock and a hard place". Agreed; but I still think removing 1 or 2 legs will almost always be incorrect. In the British Championship case it seems hard to believe that the course was not voided; clearly a control was in the wrong place; clearly many runners were affected; and the error was "fixed" halfway through the race. Embarrasment for organisers aside (and we all go through that some time if you put your hand up to volunteer) what more evidence is required?

One thing is certain - legs must never be removed at the discretion of the organiser without taking that decision through the protest process. All competitors must be notified of the decision to remove legs and be given the opportunity to protest their removal.
The issue is that there is no real way of knowing how a problem control or leg has affected an individual. The act of removing a control from a course may well discriminate against another competitor who ran hard on a leg which was deleted but as a result made an error on the next leg which was retained.

It is not just misplaced controls. We've had a case where there was technical fault with the map - an omission from the map which would not have had any affect on the competition. The decison to delete this control never went to the protest jury, and most competitors did not know about it until after the protest interval had expired. I am confident that a jury would not have dictated the removal of that control from the results.

In cases like this I see it as the techno-geek solution - we remove the control because we can be "smart" and use technology to solve a problem.

Eoin. Why is voiding almost always undesirable? I am not reading convincing arguments yet. Assertions don't convince me. The only good argument I have heard so far is that some runners will take advantage of the leg following the misplaced control. I think that is solveable using software. We know each runners average speed. We know each runners speed on the bad legs. We can find an algorithm to estimate a reasonable time and after that any extra time is time that counts. It would probably be fairer than the Duckworth-Lewis rules (apologies to non cricket nations, but even most cricket followers have trouble with rules for once day matches shortened by rain). Where is Blair when you need him.

Hi Pensioner.

When you say voiding you obviously mean removing 1 or 2 splits. I am in favour of voiding, as my comment above shows.

Re removing splits I think some cogent arguments have been made and I would add:

1 it will affect some competitors more than others for the rest of the course. Some people rely on a fast flow and an interruption throws that rhythm out. Others can continue as if nothing has happened.

2 The place it occurs in the course can be very significant; some people start fast and generally fall away towards the end; others take their time to warm up. A misplaced control with its split removed will affect case A worse if its early, case B worse if its late.

3 It plays havoc with any seeding or, in general, with the start interval - check "distracted" comments above - five runners convened.

4 In the case where the control is "fixed" part way through the course those 2 legs could be where runner A really hit his/her straps, while runner B blew it; ireelevant if you remove the splits.

Good points Eoin.
Would you agree that the best solution is to leave it to a jury to try and nut out the best and fairest option, rather than going the mandatory sentence path?
Using the phrase 'best and fairest' is meant to imply that juries will consider more than fairness. They will probably consider the interests of the majority of runners who may not be as concerned about the top few places?
In my less enthusiastic moments I am tempted to see orienteering as an unavoidably unfair sport. eg Light green can cover a wide range of runnability. Choosing to take the green option is trusting to luck. If I see the sport this way, then I am more inclined to accept a degree of unfairness in other aspects of an event.

Can't resist pushing the logic of this a little more.

1. If the error is in the second last or last control, then the argument about taking advantage of following legs by going easy does not apply if the earlier part of the course remains official.

Then, as has been done in the UK when a control was vandalised by an outsider, the decision was made to end the course at the last unaffected control. For that particular situation, this seemed a perfectly sensible solution. Different when you have another dozen controls to go...

I don't buy the average speed argument. For instance, if the runner's speed suddenly drops off after the bad legs, relative to the rest of the field, is this due to the misplaced control, because they went off too fast and got tired, because the terrain physicality/technicality changed, some other reason? An algorithm isn't going to be able to tell...

An algorithm can be much more sophisticated than average speed over a course. Google Duckworth Lewis to see how fantastical things can get.

I'm fully aware of how Duckworth-Lewis works, just of the opinion that there are far more factors at work in your standard orienteering race than there will be in a 50 over cricket match, and any algorithm that could be concocted would need several layers of complexity and significant amounts of data to verify. I would be most impressed if someone could come up with something that would accurately predict split times for every leg on an orienteering course (given no errors), which if I interpret what you are saying correctly is what would need to be done.

Every course is either fair or unfair. If it was unfair (for example a control was misplaced) then it should be cancelled. If the race is, for example, a national or world champs, then extra care should be taken with control placement, so that hopefully this will not happen often.

I can't see any reason why removing splits should even be considered. Another argument for this is that when a control is misplaced often a bunch forms, and when the control is found it is found by everybody. This kind of thing will affect people's times possibly beyond one or two splits.

In the case that the race is a selection race of some sort with a misplaced control, the results should be cancelled. The selectors can look at the splits and take comments from runners into account when making their selections if they want to, but there will be no winner, per se.

Misplaced controls add an element of luck that can affect a runner's physical state for the rest of the course. Say Jorge spends 3 minutes walking around trying to find a misplaced control. Jorge has essentially 3 minutes of rest in the middle of his course. As Jorge leaves the control Pedro sees him and nails it, running at full speed. Pedro gets no rest, but also gets no advantage from spiking the control.

Sure, this kind of stuff can happen to a certain extent throughout a course anyway, based on luck, control visibility, whatever. But if it's clearly from a misplaced control and it is protested it seems to me that weird shenanigans with splits is not the solution. Voiding a course completely pretty much stinks, but it sure seems like what would happen in any legitimate competition.

2. Argument 1 [the suggestion that a runner would intentionally vandalize a boomed control knowing the splits would be removed] could equally be rephrased to.. if you know a course will be voided, and have made a bad error, then hide the next control and void the race.


And to kick the thinking around on this a bit more: Ethical decision making is not a boolean process; there are degrees. For example, it is more likely someone would shoplift a CD over stealing a car, more likely to commit a petty crime over a capital crime. I would therefore suggest that it is more likely to overcome the ethical barriers to a crime that would throw out a couple of legs, rather than a crime that would void the entire course. Thus I think JJ's point is valid to an extent.

There is nothing to stop someone from vandalizing a control to void the course under present rules, regardless of the punching technology, yet it rarely happens (to my limited knowledge, anyway), so I think that fear is misplaced (I've heard of one instance of this, and the guilty party was caught using split analysis: it seemed suspicious that a remote control would go missing halfway thru the race to be found 200m away ...).

The question is -- is the fear JJ describes also misplaced? I would suggest: "probably", yet, as I will suggest later, want some more data on this.


Misplaced controls add an element of luck that can affect a runner's physical state for the rest of the course.


Yes, once the pathology is introduced, it is impossible to recover fairness, no matter how you slice it, unless all the trees are kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw (i.e., voiding the course). Seems plain enough, so it is a matter of weighting the proposed remedies vs the fairness lost on some sort of continuum (e.g, void course is super fair/no results -- to -- let the results stand is super unfair/complete results for all controls).

(Somewhere in that continuum is the throw out all the legs after the problem control, as has been suggested; I've ran a race where that was done -- the problem control was about 60% thru, and I felt about 60% satisfied afterwards. It felt better than voiding the course, but I'm not sure how I would have felt were it the second control ... in my case it seemed unfair as I did really badly in the first 60%, then did really well after the problem ...)

So, back to the discussion -- I've always been against the remedy of throwing out the affected splits, like most others for the reasons already stated. But, the remedy reported at the British Champs seems much more absurd, and it got me thinking about this to the point that I have reversed my position.

In my mind, it seems categorically unfair to let results stand where some runners had different control placement (really bad place on that continuum). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, as I wasn't there. But, in an abstract policy setting sense when comparing that remedy with the throw out the splits remedy, you are creating a known unfairness to avoid a potential unfairness that people are scared of. That never seems like good policy to me, so it tells me there is a place for the throw out the splits remedy -- if for no other reason to be a tool to avoid more preposterous remedies that people seem willing to use.

The idea of not trusting people to not game the system, before there is any evidence that they want to, doesn't quite sit right. As for the other negatives suggested, such as people warm up or flow thru the course at different rates/times, their concentration may be affected, etc., this is all part of the game if it is known policy beforehand that the remedy will be splits thrown out.

While it may not be fair that a misplaced control affected your concentration more than the next guy, it also seems not fair (or, more accurately, "bad luck" in both cases) if the course setter used alot of trail running options and you are a stronger technical runner than trail runner. When dealing with a pathology, it can't remain fair, but at least it is the same for everyone if it is stated policy in advance.

So, I would suggest that throwing out the split is a more satisfying remedy than voiding the course (and other potential known unfair remedies) if the issue of gaming the system can be addressed. That is, try to get the remedy of throwing out the split as close to possible to the void the course/fair end of the continuum, as I don't personally find any remedies to the more unfair side of it satisfiying.

You can address the gaming in two ways: explicitly by rule -- a) make it legal, or b) make it illegal.

a) is totally fair -- it is the same for everyone, and changes the sport in a minor fashion. You can even train for this possibility. Poof, the unfairness is removed from the problem (good), but we get the sense that this isn't sporty, and perhaps would not enjoy playing this slightly altered sport as much, I dunno.

b) is simply an enforcement problem. I've seen b) implemented in cases where you had to cross a busy road or rail line, and there were split boxes on either side to be thrown out. It was explictly stated that this zone could not be used to rest or unfairly study the map.

If you go with b), I think you look at enforcement problems similiar to prohibitions against going thru out of bounds areas and following. Most of this stuff is on the honor system -- following has become de facto accepted in many locales, with social penalties only, whereas cutting thru the out of bounds is done, but not de facto accepted. I just don't see this gaming problem as any different given we accept so much else on the honor system, and I also posit that it would be detectable via split analysis in enough instances to at least create the prospect of social penalties (that is, it would likely be detected as often as following and cutting thru out of bounds areas, via similar mechanisms as those are now: split analysis and eye-witness accounts).

So, to end a very long story, my recommendation would be: make throwing out splits be the remedy of choice, make gaming the system be either explicity legal or illegal (as you prefer), and then see if this gaming the system is actually a problem. If so, re-analyize the problem with the new actual data.

We can probably all dream up extreme scenarios like that... but I don't think they're necessary to make the tossing out splits option seem unfair. Tossing out splits is essentially changing the rules of the game after it's been played. That's never fair.

I'm arguing for removing splits --

The arguments I've seen against it is that somehow competitors might 'game' this somehow. I think it's better to trust competitors to compete as hard as they can and be fair -- don't relax effort to next control, don't move a correctly placed control they couldn't find. If they do the latter, they should be incurring a risk of being banned from competition. In fact, this has a high chance of being detected due to being able to identify the competitors who reached the control before & after the control was moved.

In my opinion the only objectively fair thing to do is to invalidate the course. However that is very unfair in another way -- the competitors presumably spent a considerable amount of time & money preparing for and traveling to the competition. It would be really sad to have all that effort go completely for naught.

If the course is NOT going to be invalidated, then it seems to me to be more unfair to reward competitors for being 'lucky' to find the control point. Invalidating the two legs around the misplaced control seems to me to be fairer over all.

This does speak to another point -- it is REALLY important that the people involved in meet organization make sure that controls are located correctly!

This is always an interesting and controversial topic!!

Here's yet another way perhaps to look at this. As competitors, we all tend to view control markers as our primary targets - objects that we have to find as we navigate around our course - and an orienteering course is a sequence of visits to these control markers. However, a control marker is really the secondary target - it's just a flag that marks the presence of the organiser's regulation "proof of passage" device for each control location (either a pin punch or an electronic equivalent). The real primary target for the orienteer is the *feature on the map* that the centre of each circle identifies - the features are what the organiser is challenging each competitor to navigate to.

This problem translates to the following two questions:

1. What is a competitor supposed to do when they arrive at the centre of a control circle that the organiser has printed on the map, and the PoP device (and associated marker flag) is not present? IMHO, this is not so much the competitor's problem as it is the organiser's. I'll dare to suggest a competitor *should* be within their rights to say "Hey, I visited the feature at the centre of the circle that you challenged me with, and your PoP device wasn't there - if you can't prove I was there, when I know I was, that's your problem not mine!" Practically, of course, this creates a trust problem, and the sport has always artificially reversed the responsibility in the rules by saying that the onus is on each competitor to find and use the PoP device provided. This is why competitors spend sometimes extraordinary amounts of time searching for misplaced markers, because they know the rules say they *will* be DNF'd if they don't find all the PoP devices. What seems to be missing is a complementary rule that says "If an organiser does not provide the regulation proof of passage device at each marked control feature, then ...(some clearly defined course of action)..."

2. What is an organiser supposed to do with a race when a proof of passage device is missing from a control feature? I feel that since there is no way to predict the individual effect on each competitor, either directly on the affected legs, or indirectly on the remainder of the race, then the only fair thing to do is cancel the affected course(s). In an ideal world, the affected classes should be recontested on a freshly-set course, but the practicality of getting everyone back from all over the country/world, on a map that is no longer "unseen terrain" for everyone, is usually too complicated to work through.

There is perhaps a way to get around the misplaced/missing marker problem, but it would involve a new process in the sport. Orienteering has always relied on each competitor taking a recording device around with them, and retrieving a token from each control point - either a pattern of punch marks on a card, or a digital equivalent in a SportIdent or Emit chip. If it were written in the rules that a competitor could *leave* a token for the organiser at a control location to verify passage if the PoP device is missing, then a missing marker problem could be dealt with on the spot by each competitor. This token could be a simple as something printed on the corner of the map that a competitor could tear off and leave, or it could be a separate token that the competitor is given to carry. However, it should be something provided by the organiser for each competitor to use for this purpose, and something that is uniquely identifiable to each competitor, not something provided by the competitor, as that would introduce another inconsistency.

In some respects, this problem is the same as a mismarked control circle. The end-effect on the competitor is the same - they arrive at the feature at the centre of the circle, and the PoP device isn't there. However, the competitor does not know at this point that they are in the "wrong" place, so this is a bit different to a misplaced marker.

It's all food for thought, isn't it...?!

I want to direct this conversation a bit, in a manner that relates to my second point above. Removing splits absolutely shouldn't be used to deal with misplaced controls, because there shouldn't be any misplaced controls. There is no* excuse for putting a control in the wrong place. The setters and vetters have as much time as they need to place the controls correctly. If this conversation makes sense at all, it's to deal with controls that are problematic for other reasons, such as stolen controls, or... I don't know, maybe controls that are surrounded by dangerous animals when some of the competitors arrive.

*In the interest of full disclosure here, I feel obligated to reveal that I once spent a lot of effort to get meet officials to remove a pair of splits in a case where a control was misplaced. I don't remember some of the details, but I do remember that there was an extenuating circumstance that someone had to be recruited at the last minute to put out some of the controls, because the course setter had been the victim of a crime the night before and was injured. And I think it might have been the case that the affected runners were otherwise going to be disqualified.

I'll dare to suggest a competitor *should* be within their rights to say "Hey, I visited the feature at the centre of the circle that you challenged me with, and your PoP device wasn't there - if you can't prove I was there, when I know I was, that's your problem not mine!"

I actually did this once years ago (before electronic punching) at a US A-meet. I arrived at the control feature and found no flag. I was 100% certain I was in the right spot, so other than a quick look around I wasted no time and went straight on to the next. Wasn't sure what was going to happen but was pretty much expecting the course would be voided.

When I got to the finish I was quite surprised to find I had been DSQ's and even more surprised to find that most people I talked to had found the flag and not noticed any problem with that control. A few (very few) people said they remembered going to the "wrong" feature at first and then finding it on a nearby feature of the same kind. At that point I found the meet director and told him the control was misplaced and either he reinstate me or I would file a protest.

He didn't believe me. He gathered up the course setter, the vetter, and me and we all went out to visit the control. (Got there most of the way in his car.) When we got there the course setter pointed to the control while I pointed to the correct location, maybe 50 meters apart. MD still didn't seem to get it until I walked him to a nearby trail junction, took a bearing off my map, had him verify the bearing was correct, and then pointed out that the bearing pointed us at my control location, not the course setter's. I even showed them the feature on the map where the flag was mistakenly placed. After that they all finally agreed with me and my time was reinstated.

So, yes, if you're sure of your location, you can try this, but if you're the only one it happens to you may still have to prove your case to the organizer.

Beofre the advent of electronic punching removing a leg(s) was not an option, thus the course could stand or it could be vioded. In some ways the desire not to use the technology harks back to those days.
Why I ask do you need to remove the leg either side of the misplaced control. If everyone actually finds hte control, then should the leg to be removed but the leg from can stand. This removes the arguement about loafing on the exit leg.
Problem is that there is no perfect solution for these things. If we were really serious we would just void the course for a misplaced control and give the competitors there money back. Once placed a control should not be moved as that makes a mockery of the course and demands that it be voided.

For the answer to that, read the story in my posting just above yours. Most of the people who ran the course I described found the control without even realizing it was misplaced. So on the next leg they're starting out from a different spot than what is mapped. Depending on what that leg is and which direction it goes, this could be anywhere from completely uninteresting to horribly confusing. If for example the next leg leaves at a 90 degree angle to the direction of the misplacement error, then nothing they see on the ground is going to match up with what they're looking at on the map, at least for a while. If it's a fairly short leg, maybe not ever. If it's one of those 200m legs where the attackpoint is the previous control, then they're hosed without even knowing it.

And if you propose the organizers should refund competitors' money, where does that end. Should they refund hotel, travel, and meal costs? How about refunding lost income for a vacation day taken from work?

Voiding the course seems the only reasonable thing to do, if it's decided to do anything at all. As has been repeatedly stated, misplaced controls should never happen. When they do it's a bad reflection on the host club, and an even worse reflection in my opinion on the governing body that sanctioned the meet. The governing body is supposed to make sure experienced people are in the organizing chain to prevent this from happening.

The big problem is everyone is a volunteer, and you just can't go around firing volunteers or holding them up to public humiliation, or you will end up with no volunteers to keep the sport going. If these were paid positions then there would be more people interested in filling them. When a big error occurs those responsible could be sanctioned for a period of time while others were given the chance to earn the money.

I'm not sure anyone has answered my original question as to whether any circumstances justify removal of splits, except jjcote. However, whether it is wild animals (maybe in N America, unlikely in Europe - except for Ukrainian dogs! - and Australia - although when course setting I once spotted a death adder asleep on a rock I was planning to use for a control, which immediately got changed!), or stolen or misplaced controls, it still comes down to cancelling the affected course(s) or doing nothing, depending on the number/seriousness of the effect on competitors.

Removing splits potentially has a bigger effect on the result than letting the result stand. Cancelling courses should be avoided wherever possible, but is sometimes necessary.

The dangerous animals I've been aware of around controls here in North America have included domestic dogs, bears, and most notably bees. And armed humans. A typical solution has been, "There was a bear at the control!" "Yes, I saw it too!" "Okay, no punch for you two at that control, that's fine, your time stands, and we'll try to warn people who haven't started yet."

RE Candyman's early comment on not moving incorrect controls. Please! Please! Please! I hope you don't apply that logic at local meets.
I'm not so concerned about how to rectify split times. This has been discussed before and my personal belief is that once a control is in the wrong spot, the race is essentially invalidated no matter what. However, you can fix the problem and then only the first few people are invalidated, or you can leave it there and invalidate the race for everyone.

I've done local C-meets with poor maps and badly misplaced controls, where the meet organizers have refused to fix the problem in some misguided attempt at fairness. I like orienteering enough that can notice the error and move on. But think about less experienced orienteers! You could totally ruin a day for them, leave them wandering in the woods for ages. On the local level at least, course quality should take precedence over results fairness.

That is a reasonable approach for most events, but what if it is the national champs? Can you 'beat' all the animals into a separate area of the forest, as they do in Scandinavia?

On the lighter note, what happens when its time to collect controls if the bear is still there? Fortunately we don't have too many armed humans in the forest in Australia, although one serial killer took his victims to a popular orienteering forest before killing and burying them. Kangaroo shooters can be a problem, but they wouldn't stop you punching a control (unless you had big ears, a long tail, and hopped). Bees are only a problem here for a few people. I ran a school event last week where 2 students with serious bee-allergic reactions were followed around the course by their parents 'armed' with epi-pens. (However, I'd made sure none of the controls was near any flowering plants).

I realise I've gone off the topic myself, but couldn't resist!

All of the animal issues I mentioned are rare. The notable case of armed humans involved them "defending" their private property, since the meet officials had failed to realize that controls close to the edge of the park would make route choices near the houses be attractive, and there was no out-of-bounds area noted on the maps.

Nasty animals in Australia. Two recent experiences. A wasp nest in one case, and a bee swarm in another. At least we don' have hornets.

Don't forget the bull at the Christmas Hills event some years ago. He wasn't friendly, and he wasn't in his paddock.

We had a situation at a recent event here in Tasmania where a control was incorrectly marked on ONE of the TWO master maps for the particular course. The result was that about half of the runners found the control comparatively easily while others spent time looking around for it like headless chooks.

Instead of voiding that leg, we as organisers asked everyone returning to the finish on that course if they had a problem with that control. Those who did were then excluded from the results analysis and a median time determined from those who navigated to the control 'normally' for the offending leg. That time was then assigned to all competitors on that course, giving a result to those who may have not have otherwise achieved a very good time for the course.

The end results showed a more expected distribution of finish times with those that normally finish at the pointy end of the field in that course coming back into consideration.

We saw this as a valid way to give a fair result instead of voiding the course completely.

Just goes to show that you should never abandon your course if you are still physically capable of completeing it.

And if you propose the organizers should refund competitors' money, where does that end. Should they refund hotel, travel, and meal costs? How about refunding lost income for a vacation day taken from work?

Voiding the course seems the only reasonable thing to do, if it's decided to do anything at all. As has been repeatedly stated, misplaced controls should never happen. When they do it's a bad reflection on the host club, and an even worse reflection in my opinion on the governing body that sanctioned the meet. The governing body is supposed to make sure experienced people are in the organizing chain to prevent this from happening.

The big problem is everyone is a volunteer, and you just can't go around firing volunteers or holding them up to public humiliation, or you will end up with no volunteers to keep the sport going. If these were paid positions then there would be more people interested in filling them. When a big error occurs those responsible could be sanctioned for a period of time while others were given the chance to earn the money.

That is yet another argument for steering the operating model away from non-profits, and to paid entities who, presumably, would be nicely encouraged by market forces to come up with some kind of satisfaction guarantee.

Add up all the volunteer hours in a major event. Put a cost of those. Estimate an entry price with an acceptable profit and risk margin. Count how many countries have the orienteering population of sufficient size to support events on this model.
The closest to this model in Australia seems to be adventure racing. The demographics of the 'customers' is very different from orienteering. The standard of maps and course setting isn't very high. Maybe the market they are tapping into isn't all that interested in technical quality, and are prepared to pay for it....

I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that if the control is misplaced there is a significant chance that some racers will never find it. Now we all know that after checking a spot from 5 or 6 different ways of attack and wasting an hour you have to cut your losses, now there are 2 options, you get frustrated wasted a lot of time and bail on the course, just go to the finish and accept those dirty shameful 3 letters, DNF, it happens to the best at times. or you relocate again and continue the course, hoping that the control was actually gone. So what happens in the case of people quitting after that control? I think voiding the splits here is unfair in that they could have finished the course and contended for the podium?
The only case mentioned this far that I agree as an acceptable voiding is in the last 2-3 controls, where you just use the splits from the last correctly placed control and call that your finish control.

anybody competing for a podium should be capable of finding a control feature and being confident that that is where the control should have been.
for-profit organisers would definitely introduce no-refund clauses if they are for-profit organisers.

I'm sure in the US some clubs have reputations for putting on better run events than others and that this affects participation levels.

My view is (to use scientific terminology) that one should only adjust results if one can determine, to at least a 95% level of confidence, an altered set of results that gives the same order as would have occurred in the absence of the problem that led to an alteration of the results being considered. In a field of any size this is a very difficult standard to meet, so I agree with the proposition that alteration of times (using splits or otherwise) should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances - I think the current Australian wording (which strongly discourages adjusting times without absolutely prohibiting it) is reasonable.

To give a hypothetical example where adjustment might be appropriate - suppose a control is stolen between the second-last and last starter, the last starter loses 5 minutes there, and comes second, 2 seconds behind the winner.

The one occasion I can recall adjustment happening in a major event here since the introduction of SI was at the 2003 WOC trials near Adelaide, where a control was stolen. It was a drinks control and the drinks containers (and, if I recall correctly, the course-setter's tape) were still there. No-one lost serious time there but a few went out to the nearest track to verify their position and lost a couple of minutes doing so. If a situation like that came up now, I think I'd be inclined to let the results stand, but give the selectors advice to remove the leg times when considering their decisions.

What's a "headless chook," aside from the obvious "a chook with its head cut off"? Is it some kind of Tasmanian chicken, with fangs, talons and steel-wool feathers?

'Chook' = 'chicken'. A word American English could really do with.

Ahh. So if I was at a restaurant in Sydney could I ask for a "Chook Salad Sandwich" or "Chook Parmesan," or is it more of a slang term? Chook Mcnuggets?

Well, you would sound weird (at least if you didn't say it in an extremely broad Australian accent, and then why would you be eating salad anyway?), but they would understand what you wanted. I think on further consideration that only things bearing a passing resemblance to the live bird, not to chunks of anonymous protein, count as chooks. So, 'I'm going to feed the chooks', yes. 'Chook salad', not so much.

I reserve the right to update my judgement on when exactly chickens are chooks if you come up with further counterexamples to my equation.

So I've been sitting here trying to think of situations where the term 'chook' might be (appropriately) substituted for the word 'chicken,' and suddenly a euphamism came to mind involving cutting off the air supply of said bird. You rarely hear it used these days, but I suspect this may be an appropriate situation. Perhaps I should use it in a sentence to preserve some semblance of decorum: "Where is so-and-so? Ahh, he's probably off somewhere choking the chook." :) Yeah, not so much decorum saved I guess. Is this expression ever used in Australia? I'm guessing its an appropriate substitution here, since it vaguely refers to the live bird. I really should get back to work...

Eddie--I thought you gave up AP. And now you are here coming up with stuff like this? Speechless.

I really should get back to work...

"choking the chook" sounds like a euphemism for something else to me.

"chook soup" sounds all right, and "roast chook" is also ok for me, but chook nuggets is weird. Chook wings is ok and just ghits in Canada and the UK (marinated for L8.90...)

Headless chook = chook with its head chopped off.

Sensitive persons should cease reading at this point.

Usually used in an expression like "running around like a headless chook", or less succinctly, "running around like a chook with its head chopped off".

Origin of expression relates back to the method of despatch of the hapless hen or rooster destined for the Sunday roast.
Chickens are those cute little fluffy things not long out of the egg. They don't make much of a meal except for kelpies and moggies, or the old tiger that lives round the back of the dunny.

If the poor old chook is not grasped securely at the time the chopper (partly) severs its neck, it can escape and flap around the back yard for a short while, understandably in random directions. It can be funny or terrifying. I was a little tacker when I first saw a chook running around with its head chopped off.
The comparison of headless chooks with orienteers looking aimlessly for controls is most apt.

You have to hold onto the right bit. Get it wrong and you can be securely holding a head while until recently attached body runs in approximations of random circles. Close analogy to confused orienteer. But the analogy breaks down. The chook is unlikely to ask for splits to be removed. The head was probably enough.

I agree with what Pensioner and Randy have written about this issue, although I'm not sure I'm ready to endorse Randy's remedy.

I'll also note that there seems to be a bit of logical sleight of hand taking place among the detractors of removing splits.

1. It was said once directly and implied several times that fairness is binary: An orienteering race is either (totally) fair or (totally) unfair. This is clearly false in any practical sense of the term "fair". There are races where the results seem exactly indicative of orienteering skill (very fair), races where the top times are from middle- to back-of-the-pack performers (very unfair), and races where the winners are good orienteers, but an unusually high number of usually-top-performing orienteers have mediocre-to-poor results (somewhat unfair).

2. As a corollary to the assumption that fairness is binary, it seems that some people are suggesting that, once a race course is technically flawed to any degree at all, fairness has been breached and every alternative for dealing with the situation is equally bad--except for voiding the course, which is fair only in the sense that it treats everyone in the course/class equally. However, voiding provides no information whatsoever about the competitors' orienteering skills, which is what the race results are supposed to do.

3. The above line of thought (which I may or may not have represented correctly) reflects a perfectionist/idealist view of sport, which I think is helpful to hold in mind when making rules for a sport. However, I think this has to be tempered by realism. Early in this thread, we learned that the alternative to removing splits, rather than voiding a course, may sometimes be letting the results stand. This is because, in the real world, juries are often hesitant to void race results, even when doing so is clearly indicated by the rules. In light of this, we are left with a question of which is the lesser evil.

4. On the other hand, a "realist" approach can open the door to lots of other considerations that are arguably outside the realm of sporting fairness. How will a new rules regime affect competitor behavior? How will it affect event quality/fairness in the short term -long term?

we've had plenty of problems with misplaced controls in Australia. like you say jjcote, the shouldnt be misplaced controls but even at the highest level in Australia it happens. at one race last year a control was clearly wrong and about half of the field had problems (depended on the direction from which you attacked the control). after a protest, the course planner, controller, and 3 jury members went out and concluded the control was in the right place. but it wasnt, which was later confirmed by the mapper (but after the time to challenge the jurys decision had expired).

after that incident i talked to some high up members in Orienteering Australia, who considered the jurys decision to be correct, although they had made their decision for the wrong reason. the idea being that they should have acknowledged the control was in the wrong place but dismissed the protest because it wasnt "sufficiently" wrong to void the course or consider eg removing the split for that control.

i think theres a couple of issues, first how was it that 5 (supposedly capable) men all sure the control was in the right place when it wasnt? i say supposedly capable as i assume you should be able to orienteer to be on a jury or be a controller? but most importantly, why were the runners who ran straight to where the control should have been disadvantaged? those runners all lost time, whether it was a lot or only some seconds, they were penalised for being correct!

its always unfortunate when things like this happen, but in my opinion if the result was affected by a wrong control then the course should be voided. i am not sure where i stand with regards to removing splits, but i dont think i'm opposed to it, as long as it is a rule and you know before you start the race thats what could happen if a control happens to be in the wrong spot. but you absolutely should not lose time (and potentially places) when you have navigated to the right place and if you do you deserve some sort of rectification.

Shep's story exemplifies how people's wishes influence their perceptions and that jury members and controllers are no exception.

People are hesitant to "throw out" an entire course for the unfairness of one control, and perhaps the knee jerk reaction of doing nothing can be softened by an attitude (and supporting rules) that there are degrees of fairness and that some result can be salvaged from a course with a misplaced or otherwise problematic control (by ending the course at the previous control or omitting a split).

I think it's important for the jury to investigate the extent to which competitors have been affected and remedy the situation in the fairest possible way (the way that produces the results list that best reflects the actual orienteering performances made by the competitors on the course, while relying predominantly on data and avoiding speculation.) I think this depends somewhat on what the racers themselves think is reasonable. Sometimes voiding the course will be the best thing, but other times perhaps not.

Re Shep's comments about 5 adults not agreeing with him. It happens. It suggests to me that maybe the map was ambiguous. If that is the case, the mapper's opinion is perhaps not the best backup. That Czech web site which shows 15 different interpretations of the same terrain has convinced me that map accuracy is more subjective than I once believed.
But what about removing heads from chickens. Where did that thread go? Are you all like my vego daughter?

The choice between voiding a course and letting the results stand can be a difficult one - they certainly represent extreme ends of a potential spectrum. I agree with Blair that the Australian guideline has it about right - a significant number of competitors have to be affected and affected in a significant way. DNFing and relying on the organisers to void the course is a risky strategy for any competitor even if the map is wrong, or the control is on the wrong feature. A competitors perception under the pressure of race speed, having maybe dropped a couple of minutes hunting for the control after getting to the right feature, and either DNFing immediately or a bit later, may differ very significantly from a jury spending 30 minutes there walking around later on.

I've only lodged 1 formal protest in Australia, after spending 25 minutes using backbearings off the finish to find the last control. I was convinced it was wrong, but I went out with the Jury later and the whole thing dissolved into ambiguity. I certainly would never have put the control there and you could argue it was definitely wrong as Shep has in another race above, but was it wrong enough to void the course? I thought so at the time, but after 10 years I can say now that the Jury probably made the right decision to let the results stand.

a lot depends on the status of the course. National championship results are looked at for years to come and indicate who were the best orienteers on The Day each year. These races should be "fair", and voided when necessary.

Local events are another matter. People who were there will know if there was a problem and will view the results accordingly.

Where things get hairy is at selection races, interrregional/national non-championship events etc... then the jury has a hard job...

Here is a little thought experiment. Let's create a new type of race with 2 rules that every runner will know before hand:

1. One or more controls will be misplaced on purpose.
2. If you come to a misplaced control, you must skip it without punching. If you punch you are disqualified.

It seems to me that this type of race would be a better way to determine who is the best and fastest at finding features in the forest--assuming that this is the goal of orienteering. At every control, you would have to be sure that you are in the exact right place before punching. It would really screw up the flow of the race (at least for me), but guys like Gueorgiou would still win. Now if the organizers make a mistake when they place a control, no one will ever know (yeah, we meant to do that).

I thought this was something interesting to think about (other than chooks). I'm not going to suggest that rule #2 should be the way that we handle misplaced controls in real life, because it turns every race into a micro-O whether or not the organizers made a mistake. I personally don't want to have to navigate down to the last centimeter.

There are races where the results seem exactly indicative of orienteering skill (very fair), races where the top times are from middle- to back-of-the-pack performers (very unfair), and races where the winners are good orienteers, but an unusually high number of usually-top-performing orienteers have mediocre-to-poor results (somewhat unfair).

I have to disagree with this point of view as I read it. It is certainly true that if errors in course setting or map quality exist, a course is unfair. But there are many other reasons that the results of an event might be unexpected; reasons which are hardly unfair.

Suppose the field is generally unused to running in a particular terrain type. Then, over the course of a single race, competitors who are usually at the bottom might adapt better to navigating in that terrain type than the habitual top finishers. Is it unfair that the race was held in terrain the competitors were unfamiliar with? Of course not (that's the whole point, right?), but it would seem that the above statement considers such a situation unfair.

If the course is correctly set, the map is correct, and the punching equipment is functioning properly, then it's a level playing field. Whether or not certain people finish where you expect them to should not be a consideration.

Apparently some courses in the French 5-Day had some complicated split removal.

I guess I'm not sure that it is oh so important to salvage results from a race with misplaced controls. sure you invested to attend the meet, but I'd say the main service we pay for is the actual orienteering and getting accurate results is secondary. Isn't winning a race that has been modified by deleting splits kinda like Barry Bonds having an asterisk next to his name in the hall of fame? A selection race will have lots of information available to make a selection even with a misplaced control (splits on other legs for instance, or amount of chest hair which we all know translates into navigational prowess [i.e. boris]). Not getting a medal at a championship event just means that you have more space in your checked-luggage to smuggle chooks home with you. You just lose bragging rights with a voided course, and frankly my ego is strong enough that I don't need "real results" to know that I'm a devastatingly handsome and hirsute god of orienteering.

I think what this discussion really shows is that no one solution is going to make everyone happy. If the official position is that a mistake on the course will lead to a voiding of the results then no one can be offended in the hopefully rare instances that this is called into play. The course was wrong so it doesn't count is very objective ( as long as we can agree that the control is misplaced) and in my experience an objective bitter pill is easier to swallow. Are we really entitled to back-up results formula for when the standard "fastest time wins" formula breaks down?

I have been use to think results should always be voided if a control is clearly misplaced and it makes race clearly unfair. It has happened. If it is a multi day race, prizes were given based on result of the other days. If it is a single one day race, drawing of lots was used to get rid of prizes. Result were not used for any ranking etc. If it was a some sort of championship race, one of the coming races were used to see who is the best. We have here is several events every weekend and local events every day. And no-one has to travel thousand kilometers to participate. It would make orienteering as competitive sport look bad if we give prizes and championship titles based on unfair races, it wouldn't much motivate anyone to practice or take it seriously.

But I can see it is not this easy and simple everywhere. There may be places where there really isn't too many races during a year and people need to travel more than 100 km to get to run one. If you can run only one or two races in a year, and those gets void, it isn't fun at all. It would motivate anyone to practice or take it seriously either.

I think there should be clear rules what will be done if there is such an error. Also that rule shouldn't punish organizers too much (like if thy would have to give back entry fees), it would just cause more stress for organizers and if something happens it would just make it too difficult to admit there really is an significant error. So there should be rules, but I am not sure should these rules be the same worldwide.

hirsute god of orienteering

Hairy god of orienteering? Would this have anything to do with chimpanzee orienteering?

Having been perpetrator of several misplaced controls in my organizing career, including at important events such as APOC 2002 Canada, Canadian Champs, and even Barebones I find it hard to imagine a world in which organizers don't put controls in the wrong place. I don't think I'm particularly sloppy, but I do make mistakes. I think I make less mistakes now than I used to (see http://www.barebones.ca/Errors%20we%20have%20made.... ) but I could not possibly have got to the 99.8% accuracy I now strive for without having gone through periods of much higher error rates.

Sports, by its very nature, relies on officials - and officials make mistakes. Soccer fans, especially English ones, will remember Maradona's 'hand of god' goal that knocked England out of the world cup quarter finals in an especially huge mistake by one of the most highly skilled officials in the world. And my high school basketball coach always taught us that we could not rely on the officials making the 'right call'. Perhaps Americans will remember the dastardly Soviet basketball officials who's timekeeping error cost the USA its Olympic Gold medal back in 19??. It is easy to find loads of games that have been affected by errors on the part of officials - but in very few other sports is an officials mistake - even a huge one - enough to cancel the results of a game / competition (no doubt there will be arguments about why orienteering officials should be measured on a higher plane - but I doubt they will wash with me).

So I think we need to allow that, as it has been in the past, controls will be misplaced in the future. The question is what to do when it happens.

I very strongly believe that 'taking out splits' is not acceptable. At APOC 2002 Canada following a misplaced control we tried to make people 'satisfied' by giving out two sets of awards - one for the actual running time (with misplaced control) and one with adjusted time (taking out the split into & out of the damed control). This seemed to make people relatively happy, given the awful circumstances - but a couple of years later I realized I'd made an error in the calculations.... Great :-( In retrospect I think that following the protest we should have just thrown out the course, left competitors with their memories of either a great days racing in the wonderful Canadian Rockies or of bloody pathetic organizers - depending on their constitution - and given the prizes to the volunteers who all felt like crap because of having screwed up the course and because of how their dreams of seeing happy competitors had turned into their worst nightmare of seeing very unhappy and some very angry competitors.

I did learn from that experience and now try to follow the rule that says a course must be thrown out if a control is in the wrong spot. However, interestingly on two occasions that I was going to implement that rule I was approached en masse by the competitors who asked that we accept the flawed results as 'good enough' for the day.

Hm, did I have a point? I think it is that there will be misplaced controls in the forest no matter who is organizing, that tossing out splits is not good (but I didn't explain why), and that I do believe there is a rule for dealing with this situation but that most people don't really like the rule most of the time.

Interesting discussion. I've changed my mind and now think splits should be left in. Rosstopher's comments finally convinced me of this. Adrian's experiences are also compelling.

The first issue is that organizers must try and make sure that there screw ups don't happen. The British problem would not have occurred if the course or controls had been vetted in the morning. This would also have avoided another problem the occurred, which was that early competitors lost time by having to 'switch on' the controls as they punched then. The first runner on one course came fourth by 2 seconds, which was less time that he lost by having to switch on the controls.

Accepting Adrian's point that mistakes will happen, I wonder used to think that it was always necessary to void the course, but now I'm not so sure.

I ran a half marathon last weekend during which I was held up for a minute as the police had to close part of the course to let some ambulances through. The runners ahead of me were not held up. I don't think that this was fair, but then I wasn't ever going to win the race so I didn't really mind. I didn't hear any of the other runners complainig that the whole race should have been abandoned because of this incident.

Again, if a mistake occurs people will be unhappy and whatever course of action the organizers/jury take, some or all of these people will continue to be unhappy. I would, however, think that if organizers do mess up, they should be prepared to refund entry fees (and reasonable travel etc costs?) to the affected people.

> if a mistake occurs people will be unhappy and whatever course of
> action the organizers/jury take, some or all of these people will
> continue to be unhappy. I would, however, think that if organizers do
> mess up, they should be prepared to refund entry fees (and
> reasonable travel etc costs?) to the affected people

A Volunteer Organiser's Manifesto

1. If you rely on volunteers organising events, you have a vested interest in keeping volunteers happy. Every finish chute flamer does their part in reducing the pool of volunteers.

2. If anyone expects a refund at an event I organise if I make a mistake, then I will no longer organise. I will do my best, but occasional mistakes are inevitable. If I make lots of mistakes, then you can decide not to attend my events based upon my poor reputation. If I make them occasionally, then I offer the event on the condition that you accept there is a potential for a mistake and attend on that basis. If that risk is too great for you to ante the petrol money and time, then please don't come. Your attendance in no way creates a contract between us that entitles you to a refund.

3. If you are rude at the finish tent, then I do not want to organise an event for you. If you insist on coming to my events anyway and bring unreasonable expectations, I will stop organising to avoid the stress.

4. I expect no more tolerance from you than I expect from myself. I understand that you too are occasionally infallible. It is unreasonable of me to believe otherwise.

5. Relationships are more important than Results.

A Volunteer Organiser's Manifesto

A Professional Organizer's Manifesto:

1. Customer is king.

2. See #1.

Do it right, and then there are no grounds for confict. I, as a participant, am willing to pay more to have?not all, but as much of a chunk as possible?of "potential for a mistake" replaced by decent vetting. I realize I may be in the minority.

Good to hear that in the US there are professional organisers who receive professional rates of compensation for their services! Sounds rewarding. ;-} My manifesto was in the response to the stated belief that organisers who make an error should compensate competitors for entry fees and travel time. We all aim to organise a totally error free event. We cannot guarantee perfection. My point was that we should all be organisers at some time in the season, and so should share a reasonable sense of tolerance when snafus happen. There but for the grace of etc. Anyone who sees them self as a customer rather than an organiser, perhaps is not doing their fair share of the volunteer load. Greater self-awareness might suggest parasite is a closer analogy than customer.

I would add:

I you are "a Volunteer Organizer" but can't perform as "A Professional Organizer" don't do it again. It's not for you.

I am "a Volunteer Organizer" and preform as "A Professional Organizer" But I am also only "human", and like it or not, us "humans" make mistakes.

That wasn't about not making mistakes, but handling them professionally.

No div. Depends on who you are saying should handle them professionally. Competitor as well as organiser. I see a cultural gap between countries here. 'Customer is always right' rhetoric is a great delusion using it in the context of a community organisation. It is gravely inappropriate. It will create unreasonable expectations and lead to disappointed finishers acting without grace, empathy or strategic thought. And in doing so, will diminish the number of volunteers in the future. That is not in the interests of any competitor.
The other side in this debate seems to keep missing the point, and coming back to inferences that some volunteers aim to run events without setting professional goals. In this location, finding willing volunteers is not always easy. If you seek to recruit new volunteers, taking a 'don't volunteer if you can't be professional' attitude is, well, short sighted, self defeating. If disgruntled competitors demean organisers who have made a mistake, then those volunteers will indeed 'decide its not for them'. Great. Its good to know you have more than enough volunteers so you can take that attitude. Don't try it in Bendigo though. Our club culture is to strive for excellence, and to nuture volunteers. We organise many big events in our region (including the odd World Championship, World Masters etc). But we are still cautious about expectations. Anger at the finish is about the only way to achieve club disapproval.
As for that previous statement that organisers who make mistakes should be prepared to refund entry fees and traveling time, well, I am stunned that no one else has questioned it. I am still waiting.

Sorry to disappoint you, Pensioner - words failed me! I thought it a preposterous suggestion. But I know the context in which we run our sport. If I totally stuffed up an event and was being paid to provide the service I might then consider not charging a fee. And that I think is the point which is being made - that paid servants will provide a better service and are accountable to the extent that they would refund a competitors expenses. Well - in my experience that doesn't occur unless there is a total cancellation of the event. If a game/tournament commences,that's it, regardless of whether or not its outcome was a success.

how about we leave our ego in the car when we change into our running gear, to be put back on when we return home. We are, all of us human and if we can absolutely guarantee that we will never make a mistake we are rather foolish. My volunteers are more important to my club that some loose mouthed egotistical wannebee.

There is very simple and old as this world way - education. If people are willing to volunteer but don't know how to be professional, than educate them, have guidelines, keep short instructions before performing duties. Effect will be tremendous, in quality of events and people satisfaction.

There is very simple and old as this world way - education. If people are willing to 'Compete' but don't know how to be professional, than educate them, have guidelines, keep short instructions before performing duties. Effect will be tremendous, in quality of events and 'volunteers' satisfaction

I undertake it to be uber nice to any and all volunteer organizers I may encounter, regardless of the quality of their work, competence, dedication, or behavior. I charge $10 for this service at local events, $20 at nationals.

I like that suggestion of paying for considerate behaviour! Of course, being a professional organiser, it is a cost I will have to pass back on to customers. Thus it becomes a refund on completing a race without complaint.

Sounds a bit like the complaint fee that is part of the barebones event, but in reverse!

To be a little more serious, if the expectation was refund of event and travel fees if there is an error, then it would be foolish not ro run an event without insurance to cover this eventuality. Of course, this would be reflected in the entry fee. Perhaps there would emerge a no-claim bonus for competent organisers, and a novice surcharge for new organisers.

If such insurance is available to organisers, perhaps it could also be taken out by individuals to compensate them if events are not up to their expectations. Withdrawal of no claim bonus would perhaps be used to financially punish those with higher expectations.

On second thoughts, maybe I am still not being serious. Maybe I should try a little.

What are the differences at stake here between a client-professional model and a social network model of event organisation? One important issue is how one construes the obligation upon the organiser to provide a quality event. I suspect that one view prevailing in this discussion is that a professional-client relationship is necessary to ensure event quality.

Here is a gentle challenge.

In a professional-client relationship, the market is generally seen to be encouraging event quality through remuneration expectations of the organiser. Poor performance puts future income streams at risk.

The 'social network' model differs from the professional model in one crucial aspect other than remuneration. There is a much stronger reciprocal obligation between participants that is not an obvious feature of the professional-client model. In the 'social network' model, I believe there is also strong pressure to provide event quality through the influence of mutual obligation as well as social status. Organisers who do not make a strong effort to provide quality events gain a poor reputation. And there is the reciprocal obligation issue. If I do not do my best when I organise, then others will not provide feel an obligation to provide me with good events. Whilst we may wish to be seen as providing 'professional' standard events, few organisers can truly claim to be professionals. They receive no remuneration. And if they look closely at their motivations, I am sure reputation and personal satisfaction are very strong drivers. There is generally no expectation of a future remuneration stream that requires to be protected. There is instead a strong social pressure against inconsiderate, rude and poor event organisation standards. It is a cliche, but I draw a comparison with the open source software movement. Professional structure do not guarantee a superior product.

So if you experience rude, inconsiderate and incompetent organisers, you do not have to be paid to be nice to them. If they have not put in their effort towards the mutual obligation, then you have a reason to be displeased. The crucial problem here is, if an event goes wrong, can you be sure that the mutual obligation social contract has been broken? There are any number of reasons why problems can occur, and rarely is it due to organisational negligence. Mutual social obligation between orienteers should obligate us all to withhold judgement until we have certainty. My original issue was that orienteers who make immediate judgements about other organisers when in the finish chute are themselves breaking the social contract that keeps this sport going as a group of enthusiast non-remunerated volunteers.

And if the failed organiser has not met his or her end of the orienteering social contract, there are perhaps other social obligations and even personal benefits in refraining from aggressive, rude or impolite behaviour. It might be in one's own self interest to just walk away and not turn up next time.

one view prevailing in this discussion is that a professional-client relationship is necessary to ensure event quality.

I would not use "necessary" and "ensure", I suggest "conducive to" instead. I think that most organizers' mistakes are of course unintentional, but occur not because of negligence but rather of a certain enumeration of priorities. I'm bringing up an example I have witnessed more than once when organizing. A key volunteer declares, some time in advance of the event indeed, that s/he will be unavailable on a certain event-related occasion because of a conflict. And it isn't a matter of life and death issue, nor is it a wedding anniversary; nor is it a trivial errand, but rather, say, a child's soccer game that just got scheduled—the school team advanced to the next round. And you, the event director, scramble to fill positions, and are kind of successful, but then the house of cards falls apart on the event day because of some other small problem or another, culminating in a control that the setter has no time to place because s/he is assisting with something else.

Is a competitor justified in her negative judgment in this situation? I would certainly go farther and say that the competitor is fully justified in delivering an all-out negative assessment right there out of the finish chute. And you, the organizer, should swallow all pride and admit right there on the spot that you have messed up. Because, face it, the competitor had absolutely no control over the situation whereas you did. After hearing all the details, a graceful competitor can be forgiving to any particular person out of the organizers' crew because, well, s/he is not personally responsible. It is the system. It is the lack of full responsibility that is just so pervasive with a volunteer organizer base.

My point has been that there is a quite umsymmetrical reliationship that is created when someone enters, and pays for, a race, that between the organizers and the competitor. To expect similar behavior from the two sides in the event of a problem is quite nonsensical, as my brief prior post was meant to suggest. Both sides of this relationship seem to be best served within a professional-customer model. In the above example, suppose the key staffer in question was compensated. Even if the renumeration was not large in comparison with market wages for someone of similar experience, my feeling is that people are considerably more inclined to take their duties seriously if these duties involve compensation, not even necessarily monetary.

Yes, I have seen that situation more than once. If you were the organiser, I would feel sympathy for your attempts to work with less than fulsome support. Whether we like it or not, the organiser is dealing with volunteers who may not share the same sense of urgency about the event going off without a hitch. In a professional organisation, you have a certain power over workers. You don't have this in voluntary sport. Problems of asymmetric commitment (you wouldn't perchance be an economist?) become more likely as events get larger. This creates a certain irony. As the pressure to ensure an error-free event increases, the likelihood of the problem you describe increases.

Yes, it might be solved if we could go professional, but in both our countries I suspect that is a pipe dream. Yes, I would pay more for a professional event, especially if I could take part without feeling the mutual obligation to respond in kind with reciprocal organisation of an event.

We are stuck in a volunteer model for the moment. What is at the core of the problem in the example is perhaps a shortage of volunteers with the same sense of committment. To me the obvious solution is to cut your cloth to the committed volunteer base that is available. If your or my orienteering associations chooses to take on an event that is too complicated for the available resources, or too many events for the available resources, then problems become much more likely.

I think the barebones concept is one response to this problem. Another is to just do less. Our club is decreasing its commitment to larger events with each successive year. This is happening because we do not commit to a fixture unless we have a willing volunteer. Structural changes in the economy and social changes have taken a toll on volunteerism across the country. There is some comment from other orienteers that there are fewer big forest events. My response is that this is focussing on a symptom. We don't need more events, we need more willing volunteers.

And so I come back to that finish chute. I would not blame you as organiser while in the finish chute. I would attempt to understand the problem, and might conclude that the true blame lay with whatever group chose to take on the event without taking heed of the available volunteer labour.

I'm interested in this because our club is going through just that assessment about an upcoming Australian Championships. Some of the players in this process have been contributing to this AP debate. The optimists take the view they can win people over to volunteer. The pessimists (myself included) are apprehensive of taking on the event because of the risk you outline. And finish chute flamers are part of the disincentive.

I think there is a bottom line here. If the 'market' wants more large events and is pressing reluctant volunteers, then the market needs to understand that it is taking on an increased risk of problems. If that is not recognised in the finish chute, then someone is willfully not reading the signals.

"Both sides of this relationship seem to be best served within a professional-customer model"

Garbage. A competitor is not paying for the volunteers organisers time. And they should certainly refrain from "an all out negative assessment right there in the finish chute". Your perceptions are altered when you compete; you do not have all the facts; you have less oxygen in the brain than you need. At the very least you should count to 10.

Not 10. Perhaps 5,371.

Yes, it might be solved if we could go professional, but in both our countries I suspect that is a pipe dream.

I wouldn't be so insistent had there been no data to support observations. First, we just went through a large increase in trail running participation here in Northern California between 2002 and 2007 solely due to professionalization of the events. Where there was one event of perhaps 200 people a year in a certain park, there are now 3 or 5, of which several sell out the quantity-400 permit. Some of the growth is new runners, some is existing people. Of course trail running is different from orienteering. It is somewhat easier to put on, although the non-course aspects (taking entries, putting up signs, timing finishes, etc.) are largely similar, and it seems to be those non-course things that often hinder orienteering organization for lack of volunteers. There also is a culture of "should volunteer if you want to run" among trail runners. Entry fees between trail running and orienteering are quite similar. Professionalization did raise trail running fees, but not by more than about 30% in my coarse estimate.

It may be that there just happened to be this untapped market for organized trail running that doesn't exist for orienteering. It may also be, I hope, that people are more inclined to go and have fun if they are not constantly nagged to help out. There are now several entities in the States that may be willing to bring this model to the orienteering market. Which brings me to

Garbage. ... you have less oxygen in the brain than you need.

I personally find it kind of hard to Attackpoint while competing. :))

Please keep us informed of these several entities and their plans. Someone who has taken part in this forum has been musing about doing something similar. The challenge I still see with orienteering as opposed to trail running is the increased complexity. At some stage, particularly as events get larger, the professional will need to call on volunteers, and thus perhaps face the problem you raised earlier.

I still think it would just be much easier to nurture volunteers rather than excoriate them when snafus happen.

And I remember when I had enough oxygen in my brain. Just.

Tundra/Desert said:
Even if the renumeration was not large in comparison with market wages for someone of similar experience, my feeling is that people are considerably more inclined to take their duties seriously if these duties involve compensation, not even necessarily monetary.

I don't want to get into this discussion too deeply, except to point out that there is some evidence in the economics literature that it's dangerous to price people's time very low. If I work for free, I get to feel good about volunteering. If I work for $5/hour (AUD or USD, doesn't matter much these days...), I risk starting to feel like I'm working for insultingly low wages, whether or not I'm working for an organization I care about. That is, if you're going to pay, you have to pay properly. The middle ground between volunteer organizations and professional organizations has to be trodden with care.

(To be sure, the evidence on this isn't fully conclusive - the best paper I know looks at the different situation where a day care center (centre) introduced a fee for parents who picked up their kids late (previously it had been free, with dissuasion from the staff). Late pickups rose. What seems to have happened is that once there was a fee, parents viewed 'late pickup' as a service available at a bargain price, rather than an abuse of a responsibility.)

The middle ground between volunteer organizations and professional organizations has to be trodden with care.

Certainly. One of the trail running companies I used as an example offers logo-ed goodies and free entries to its "volunteer" staff. So, even if you are dead broke, you can participate in a number of organized runs and get half-way outfitted (everything but shoes) in exchange for your time. You are clearly compensated with items of value, but at the same time it's not obvious that the pay is comparably low.

By contrast, most orienteering clubs will charge you an entry fee even if you help out during all your non-running, non-sleeping time at an event.

Perhaps its just me, but I have issues with volunteering for an organization/individual when that organization/individual is knocking down coin/making a profit, as is indicated in Vlad's trail running enterprise example. It is not clear to me whether this organization is a for profit/non-profit (and again that makes a difference), but I would suggest that the ground between volunteers volunteering for for-profit enterprises also be trodden with care (or is that just me?).

(And I consider an individual being "compensated" for their time as an individual making a profit -- while they may not be getting market wages for their time, they are selling it at a profit in my eyes, even if that profit is not optimal, it is larger than my profit as a volunteer).

OTOH, I'm generally more than willing to volunteer if everyone else is in the same boat.

The organization in question is a for-profit corporation, and never seems to have problems finding enough volunteers (or is it "volunteers"? maybe workers is the right term).

Well, that seems like a good business to be in. Good for them.

Re mixing volunteer and paid labour
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:4s...

When I offer to set courses, its not because I feel an obligation to volunteer, but because I enjoy course setting. The following is true for me, whether it is an Australian Championships or a low-key local event.

Because it is 'my' event, I don't want any stuff-ups, so I tape all the control sites myself, but not until after several visits to the area. These are then all checked by the Event Controller, and any anomalies corrected, or more likely eliminated since two of my tenets are (a) if there is any difference of opinion about the indentification, appearance or mapping of a site - leave it out, and (b) the fewer controls, the better the courses.

Since I trust noone, I also put all of the controls out myself. The Controller checks these, picking up the tapes as s/he goes. I also double check everything else (control descriptions/codes, the mapping around each control site, etc.) before the Controller checks them again. Now, except for stolen controls, how can a mistake occur?

If you can't find one person willing to work in the above manner, and you need to have 2-3 (not more, please!!) setters, then make sure your Controller is experienced and willing to put in the hard yards. Never allow any of your setting team (and absolutely NOONE else) to put out a control unless they have previously visited the site and seen the tape.

If every event were organised in this way, we'd have far fewer mistakes, and no need for this debate.

Oh, there still might be a need for this debate! In my experience, course setting is the easiest job to find volunteers for, since it's fun and gets people out in the woods. Simmo, it sounds like you do a fantastic job of it!

Most events include jobs that are essential, but less appealing to most people, especially if it means that they can't run. It depends on the event, but some examples include advance registration, purchasing food, check-in and cash handling, putting up the finish chute and tent, printing maps, collecting waiver signatures, programming SI, taking down controls, etc., etc.

If we're going to use professional organizers, perhaps we should use them mostly for non-orienteering tasks, and managing the actual race course could remain a volunteer task. There are valid concerns about using professional services, but there are equally valid concerns about volunteer burnout and not being able to "make" a volunteer do anything. The answer isn't easy, but there are enough great minds on this forum that maybe we can come up with something!

A very pertinent debate. "NZ Orienteering" magazine carried a provocative article from the president canvassing these issues. And an interview with a professional event organiser (outside orienteering). A very few NZ events have started to use payment for some services (beyond mapping, which is now accepted, but only after similar reservations and debates). Like mapping, the payments hardly ever reach "checkout chick" levels when you use a proper comparison (holidays, overheads etc) so the people receiving them are still driven by some sort of passion for the job.

This has got right away from removal of splits:-))

Time to restart as a new thread... or is this aiming to surpass the 'you know you are an orienteer when'...

but there are enough great minds on this forum that maybe we can come up with something!

Or the market will come up with something. If the market comes up with the status quo, that speaks volumes (at least to me). Of course, if the market came up with professional race organizers, that would speak equal volumes, obviously.

This has got right away from removal of splits

I think that is so as it has evolved from the argument of don't remove splits because the organizers (volunteer, paid, or mixed) need to be incented to not screw up, and if they do screw up, need to be penalized with the torched earth of nuking the race so that they are so shamed as to never even set gaze on vetting tape again.

While we could argue the tenability of this position until the market provides us with an alternative to volunteer labor, I would simply bring up the following -- assume the organizers are not human, and some species of perfect creature from the planet Skaro that never misplaces a control. Then assume a control is vandalized. Then conduct the thought experiment of whether is is better to void a leg or void the race, when it is perceived of value to walk home with results (and we assume some perceived value to results, or we would be wasting our time in this discussion).

Since any solution has to encompass the problem of the vandalized control, and since this has nothing to do with the (specious, IMHO) incent/penalize the organizers vibe, we should think about the best way to handle the problem in this light without that unnecessary baggage, as the following two things are true: vandalized controls happen, and people like results.

Well, I don''t even remember the points made in this thread 50 posts ago, so I'm sure I'm rehashing, in which case I apologize (although I do recall arguing that the probabilty of runners vandalizing controls intentionally to game the system is low) .

When are the Skaro Championships?

It's course setters who are not human. They are after all the ones who misplace the controls. I think I'll put a Dalek at the finish of Sunday's Mia Mia event to deal with complaints.

Or the market will come up with something.

I don't think the market will come up with anything in the near future, but I think that clubs can use professional services to offload tasks in an intelligent, creative manner, and that's where we can share ideas. For example, we use an online registration company for larger events, as do many other clubs. We now use the same company to sell our memberships. The more peripheral tasks that can be offloaded, the more volunteer energy that remains to make sure that things like control placement are done correctly.

For a 3-hr winter event earlier this year, we hired a professional adventure racing organizer (and orienteer) who got a portion of every entry fee. He set the course, arranged for third party vetting, put out the flags, arranged a post-race meal, obtained all kinds of sponsored prizes, and... did a lot of marketing, since he made more money if more people came. The club did the OCAD, printed the maps and marketed through our usual channels. Even if the event organizer had been unable to assist with course setting, his services would still have been valuable. Sure, the club didn't make as much money on this event as it could have - but we all agreed that this event wouldn't have happened at all if we couldn't have offloaded a lot of the work.

My experience has been that professional adventure race organizers do a very good job of making the event "feel" professional (goody bags, a big PA system, non-trivial prizes, etc.) but that the incidence of course mistakes is an order of maginitude higher than local orienteering competition.

Hence, that may not be one of the tasks that a club wants to outsource. In the event I described above, the AR organizer is also a trained orienteering official. But as I mentioned earlier, in our club, course setting is the one task that even our top orienteers are interested in doing once in awhile. Nobody enjoys arranging a race banquet though.

Agreed. My point was simply that going to the "professional" model may do absolutely nothing to address the initial concern in this thread. If you make an event sufficiently glitzy, you will get attendance and make money, but it might still suck.

"Letting the market decide" is only valid if you are willing to let your market drift. "The market" for true orienteering is very small. The market for running around in the woods in the general direction of a control and then hunting for it is considerably larger (and, in my experience, more willing to shell out $500 entry fees).

I'm not saying this to slam adventure racing, just to point out that what constitutes a quality event is very much in the eye of the beholder. The orienteering crowd is generally, well how to put it nicely, let's say frugal. As such, they get a smaller vote in a market driven system. Thus, it is not at all clear that such a system will result in changes to our liking. While I do think that there is some merit to compensating meet directors (we already compensate mappers and still manage to find volunteers), I think the "social network" model is more appropriate for a niche activity like ours.

Agreed that the frugality of orienteers is a major problem in getting quality events!

Perhaps I confused matters because the professional event organizer we hired happens to be an excellent orienteer as well. In most cases, that won't be true. What I'm trying to say - and not doing a great job of it - is that there are a lot of grunt tasks associated with any event, and if we can outsource as many of them as possible, we will save the energy of our best volunteers for the things that only a good orienteer can do. Things like OCAD and correctly placing controls. If we pay people to do things related to the race course, yes, we could run into issues with unpaid volunteers. (Although we didn't have problems with the event we did.) But if we pay a company to handle our online registrations or arrange a banquet, the other volunteers aren't concerned. That's what I mean about intelligent, creative use of professional services - saving our highly-qualified, over-burdened volunteers for those tasks that only people with their skills can do.

At most of our big events, our banquet is organized by a person who coached Canada's junior orienteering team for years. Is that the best use of her skills? No wonder she and so many others get burnt out sometimes, and we just can't hold as many events as we'd like. But the one caveat with all this is that we all have to be prepared to pay more for our orienteering events. Before last year's NAOC, I heard of one fellow who felt that our races were $5 each more expensive than they should be, so he wasn't going to drive 6 hours (buying gas, staying in hotels and eating in restaurants) to do them. Sigh... it's an uphill battle sometimes, folks.

We hired staff to help organize one major event that we put on. They were responsible for all the 'grunt' work that Bash refers to. They did an excellent job. This left the remaining volunteers to do the tasks such as course setting etc, which is what they wanted to do. I was very sceptical about the situation beforehand, but it worked really well.

Volunteers don't 'burn out' if they are doing what they want to do. They only 'burn out' if they are forced to do more, or to do other things.

The point about low pay is very valid. If you are not paying a living wage, then they are essentially still a volunteer. This can lead to problems.

PS - To go back to the original thread, the mistake in question arose in a one day National Championship on an Elite course because the flags were not vetted properly. I don't it is unreasonable to expect that this wouldn't happen at this type of event. Expectations of a smaller, less high profile event, with fewer organizers would obviously be lower.

It is official: New Rule 24.15.

We went over the issue at an IOF Event Adviser conference in Kiev last August. Indignation caused by split time removal was uniform across national boundaries. IOF Rules Commission has now followed up in writing.

24.15 states:

"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."

Thank goodness.

Good to see the IOF has done that. It would be very unfair to remove a split time for a bad mapping or error of some sort that is beyond competitor control. If such a case happens (which we all hope would not happen with the care an attention that should be given) and soemthing needs to be done the only fair option is to cancel the course. I know I would protest if one leg was ever removed because one leg can vastly affect the rest of the race for someone.

in a bit of creative thinking, could the organisers change the definition of "whole course" after the start of the race?
For example, the bridge from the last control into the finish area washes away due to heavy rain after the race starts. Organisers can time runners to last control without using splits... etc.

1) ndobbs probably refers to a mass start World Cup race in Switzerland in 1996, where in fact the bridge had to be closed after the majority of the competitors had passed to the finish. Unfortunately the organiser was unable to provide split times at the last control, and nobody had registered the sequence of the runners reaching the last control. Therefore the last part of the result list was incomplete. However, it was generally accepted that using the results from the last control was better than nothing.
2) Swiss rules prohibit removal of splits at least for 15 years.

3) What would you think about modifying the split time of a single competitor when it is proven that he lost time by a factor outside his control, e.g. a dog, a route that was barred by a new fence, or a train just passing a level crossing?

or a train just passing a level crossing

That one is a course-setting error.

or a train just passing a level crossing

I've run in a race where the course crossed an active railroad crossing. They put SI units on both sides, and threw out these splits. Similarly, I've seen the same thing done at a road crossing, where marshalls will stop you if a car is coming, and throw out the splits. We contemplated doing this at Lehigh in the circumstance where we couldn't get the city to close Packer Ave (although in that case, Packer Ave wouldn't really have been that busy to warrant it).

I suppose under this IOF rule, this course setting technique is now illegal?

If it's planned and announced that way in advance, I could see it passing muster, though there are arguably still issues that would need to be addressed.

I would think that the situations that Randy brings up would in fact be illegal under the new ruling.

I'll follow this rule assiduously whenever I organise an IOF event. That hasn't happened yet.

hmm... the situation Randy described was in fact implemented at Lehigh. On Monday, on the white course, for a road crossing. Announced in advance and the split from one control to the next deducted from the total time.

It was used at the Oz Easter 3 Days in Castlemaine 3-4 years ago for a road crossing about 400m before the finish. Everybody was taking a breather to get ready for the final sprint (not that it mattered much as most of us had well and truly stuffed up in the green-covered gold mining terrain before the road).

simmo

Some were taking a hell of a lot more than a breather.

I saw one elite female sit down and start removing her shoes and socks. I had a slight breather myself while crossing the road but as I left she was still adjusting her footware.

This seemed to me to be taking too much of an advantage of the situtation and not being fair to other competitors.

Marshals in the area should make sure people do the right thing, but there are probably no rules covering the situation, just common sense and fair play.

That Easter event involved approx 1000 people crossing the road in a relatively short time period.
And was also used at the same road crossing at our 2007 Vic Mid Distance Champs, albeit for a much smaller number of competitors. The dilemma for me as Organiser in 2007 was that a safety precedent had been established. It drew quite a bit of subsequent discussion on AP on how to take best advantage of the situation. I could only marvel at the innovative practices proposed by some of our M35s - they are the true masters!

These are exactly the kinds of "issues" that I was thinking of. If it were an elite race, with a comparatively small number of competitors, you could probably set it up so that there was a time limit, after which the clock would start ticking whether or not the second station had been punched. But it hardly seems worth it.

Reminds me of the elite sprint at the 2006 Oringen. Soon after the start the course required competitors to cross a vehicle bridge over the river. This bridge was not closed to traffic. The result was watching cars and runners travelling across the bridge in line or runners overtaking cars. I seem to remember the ISSOM map specifications stating that if cars cannot be kept out of the race area, then the terrain is not suitable for a sprint. Safety is far more important than other considerations.

in response to: 3) What would you think about modifying the split time of a single competitor when it is proven that he lost time by a factor outside his control, e.g. a dog, a route that was barred by a new fence, or a train just passing a level crossing?

I was at a sprint event where somebody had vandalised a control shortly before I arrived at it, so both myself and the runner after me lost ~1min, then the control was placed back where it should be. The two of us who were affected had our times guestimated by the controller and planner (going on our running speed for the rest of the course) and turned out pretty accurate, nobody moaned either (wasn't a huge event though)

Oxoman

My intent was not to blame the officials on the day as such. I'm sure the sort of behavior I witnessed would not have been foreseen by reasonably fair minded officials.

I actually loved the area and the event, had a great run and would hate to think that the event may not have taken place if this system hadn't been utilised.

Perhaps all we need is an electric cattle prodder to spur some of the deliberately very slow people along.

I thought of resting at that control at the Vic Champs. But I got bored very quickly, so kept going after what seemed like ages, but turned out to be less than a minute.

Holder of electric cattle prod may need some education in identifying M80's, 21AS's, birdmen and other varieties of orienteer who may appear to be going "deliberately very slow" when in fact they are continuing at top speed.

that is where you put a "resonable time" to cross the road limit. on it. Like if someone takes 5 minutes and everyone else takes 2 minutes obviously they had an unfair advantage and should be disqualified. Times for the road crossing should be close to one another.

Meanwhile in the "grey" real world, as opposed to "black and white" Dreamland, that (5 mins as opposed to 2) is never going to be the case. I'm amazed anyone would actually think about disqualifying someone from 3 days of hard yakka just for taking a bit longer than some other people on a neutral section.

If you are going to go down that road you have to say IN ADVANCE that there is a "time limit" for the neutral section and what that time limit is. The time limit should be posted up at the relevant crossing point.

Then if someone does actually take longer, you simply add the time over the time limit to their running time. No talk of disqualification please, that is just ridiculous.