Delaware Valley Orienteering Association

Topic created by FredR on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 9:45 am

FredR
Num Posts: 97
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map:
First O: 0

An interesting discussion on Attackpoint (AP) got me thinking again about something that I and others periodically wrestle with at our local events.

The AP discussion concerns the meaning of "uncrossable" when applied to features on a map--uncrossable rivers, marshes, fences, and so on.  The starting point for the discussion was that Canadian orienteering makes "uncrossable" a rule, whereas the international federation (IOF) treats it more like a guideline.  In other words, in Canada, you are not allowed to cross an uncrossable fence, even if you could physically do it; whereas according to IOF you are apparently welcome to try at penalty of lost time and perhaps life and limb. There's a lot more to this discussion, but the important point at the moment is the question of tradeoffs between safety and competition; and the allocation of responsibility between the runner and the course-setter/ED. For example, if a course setter creates a route choice that would tempt someone to cross an uncrossable cliff (outside of Canada), are they both to blame if someone takes the bait and ends up getting seriously hurt? Or, alternately, if a mapped uncrossable swamp has dried up because of a recent drought, is it OK if someone enters it (accidentally or intentionally), in or outside of Canada?

The relevance to some local issues is this: What should be the tradeoff at local events between the interests of the club in encouraging safe and enjoyable recreational activity, and providing a fair and consistent competitive environment? This came up again when I was ED at the French Creek event in two ways.

First, because of several factors--challenging courses and wet weather being two--there were a number of people that took longer than the 3hr time limit (USOF rule 33.08).  Checking some past events this year, it appears this happens regularly without these runners always being marked "Overtime" (OVT) which the rule requires (and presumably being the equivalent to a "Did not finish" (DNF) for ranking purposes).  On one hand, the club wants people to enjoy their time in the woods (however long it may take), but on the other hand would want to discourage people from running courses that take them close to and/or over the time limit for safety purposes, not to mention to provide a fair and consistent rule-abiding competition.

Second, there is the question of dangerous situations involving actual or potential injury--heavy lightening (remember Mt Penn a year or two ago), bears (periodically in Hickory Run), or this past weekend with a swarm of really nasty yellow jackets. The USOF rule for national rankings is: 50.2.1 if you don't finish the course for any reason, including injury, (except to help another injured runner), you DNF.  So, on one hand, the club has an interest in not wanting to incline people to risk serious injury under dangerous conditions (more so than usual, anyway) by continuing the run.  On the other hand, it is difficult for anyone to judge the appropriate level of danger below which a runner should continue or else accept the DNF.  As someone put it, it's a slippery slope that risks compromising the fairness of the competition and ranking system.

The arguments for strictly adhering to the USOF rules include: that it minimizes the chances for surprise and confusion when they are strictly enforced (by another club or at an A event); it makes the job of ED much easier (although, as I understand it, the ED can always override the rules under "special circumstances"); and limits the chance of "gaming" to one's benefit.  After all, we do allow a certain fraction of runs to be thrown out of scoring for "bad luck" whether it was not looking in the right place for a control or having to avoid a momma bear.

The arguments for being more lenient include: that it may better accommodate the interests of recreational (vs competitive) participants (e.g., 4hrs in the woods is an extra hour of fun); and tends, in the case of dangerous situations, to discourage riskier behavior in the interest of competition.

I still consider myself a relative newcomer to orienteering, so perhaps these issues have all been battled out over many years and the present status quo is the best solution that can be had.  But, it did trouble me as a novice ED to have to debate with myself and others the relative merits of these arguments just to get the results submitted.  If this is a conversation still worth having, or perhaps revisiting, I'd like to hear what others think.

Reply by Sandy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Sandy
Num Posts: 318
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Hickory Run 1:15000
First O: 1993

This is definitely a conversation worth having and I, too, would like to know what others think.

I can see plusses and minuses on both sides.

If the rankings are going to mean anything, then there should be rules about overtime and unforeseen issues that affect competitors (injury, bears, bees, etc.).  My inclinition is to follow the OUSA rules of competition.  (OUSA or Orienteering U.S.A. is the new name for USOF, the U.S. Orienteering Federation.)   However, not everyone that comes to our events cares about the rankings so it does seem a little harsh.

If we are going to start enforcing OT (overtime) then we need to make that clear at registration.

Reply by rgbortz on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm

rgbortz
Num Posts: 201
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Stuckey Pond
First O: 1986

Certainly worth revisiting and in need of some resolution. However, probably too lengthy to be resolved through this forum, but will hopefully get some good input here.

I for one am in agreement with OUSA in regard to  "uncrossable". What is uncrossable to one person may be another's minor challenge; or under present circumstances at the time of an event the uncrossable at the time of mapping may be totally crossable to everyone. EDs need some latitude.

The OT issue should also be viewed from event organizer's and helper's  concern beside the safety aspect. Do you want to wait around for people who habitually take more than the three hour limit to wrap up your event ? If the official club stance is to allow OT then how many will argue and complain that the controls were taken down too early. Again, the EDs need some latitude to weigh the circumstances of any given occurance.

Perhaps the upcoming Board meeting could visit this and reach out to more of the club membership for input.

Reply by randy on Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 9:40 am

randy
Num Posts: 11
Primary Club:
Fav map: Hickory Run 1:15000
First O: 1998

the important point at the moment is the question of tradeoffs between safety and competition; and the allocation of responsibility between the runner and the course-setter/ED.

I don't think there is a tradeoff here.  Safety wins.  The course setter must set a safe and reasonable course regardless of what the rules and regs say, regardless of the effect on competition, and regardless of day of differences between the map and the terrain.  In an ideal world, both the course setter/ED and the club would be liable for a safety failure, so that the incentive not to overreach is placed in the proper place.  The course setter/ED/club has plenty of time under no duress to study the terrain and course setting in question and make sure it is safe; the runner has less time, has less information, and is under more stress to do so.  I've run plenty of courses to know that safe courses can be fun, fair, and so forth.

As for the Canadian champs issue, I did post my thoughts in that thread, so there is no need to repost here, but I will simply say this regarding how the issue relates to this thread -- if the marshes or whatever are safe to cross, then IMHO it is fine to set route choice across them, regardless of what the map says (tho expect complaints -- perhaps legitimate, about competitive unfairness, and that may be a reason to not set that way).  OTOH, if the marshes or whatever are unsafe to cross, don't set across them regardless.  Remember, the designation of "uncrossable" or "crossable" is mapper's judgement based on time of mapping and prediction of normal cirumstances.  If there was a judgement or predictive failure on the part of the mapper, or cirumstances are unusual, the course setter/ED/club judgement trumps it, with safety being first.  If such a reasonable, common sense judgement cannot be made, the controversial elements should be avoided as the default case.  (As an aside, I don't buy the argument posited in that Canadian thread that interesting or fair courses could not be set if the controversial elements were avoided.  If this is really true, remap it or choose a different venue -- it is a championship after all.  Otherwise, your order of priorities is: safety, fun, fairness, tho you can swap the order of the last two at your discretion to mimimize/maximize grumbling.  (This is, after all, recreation, and the Federation's emphasis is on recreation over high performance, and it doesn't do anyone any good if the courses are fair, but no fun (but they still must be safe)).

As for other questions of safety such as bears, storms, and yellow jackets, some things are simply unforseen and there is nothing you can do.  Most reasonable people are aware of the systemic environmental risks of being outdoors in "wild" terrain.  If not, do they need to be educated somehow?   Obviously, if there is a known risk, like you know where the bear den is, or you know lightning is specifically coming to Mt. Penn, then the situation must be avoided.  But. most of the time you can't know this  (I was at that Mt. Penn lightning fest, and I had wished I wasn't at the time, but I could not have reasonably expected the club or ED or myself to forsee it).  It is clearly different than being able to check the terrain for the safety of cliffs and marshes w.r.t. to day of conditions.

If your question pertains specifically to time loss or inability to finish a race due to these unforseen dangerous conditions, then I personally feel you should not make an exception, and the race result should stand.  As you said, both USOF and DVOA allow race score drops for "bad luck".  I think I understand the motivation -- to eliminate the incentive to continue thru a dangerous situation in the name of rankings. My response -- I don't think any reasonable person would risk a dangerous situation in the name of their ranking score.  If they do, they don't fit my definition of reasonable person.  If you posit the existence of such an unreasonable person, then it is not a stretch to posit the existence of a person will will game the system by inventing hazards and abandoning bad races in the name of rankings under some sort of hazard grace rule that allows free DNFs (assuming that is what is being suggested).

I can see how the forgoing could be contentious, and can see the other side of the argument.  There certainly is nothing wrong with experimenting with such a rule to see how it goes.  It is perfectly possible that peer pressure and the threat of social ostracization will provide a large enough disincentive to game the system in practice.  Without such, I can assure you such a situation will be gamed.

The best answer is probably to provide the ED with the tools to judge each circumstance on a case by case basis.  The tool of discretionary result adjustment already exists.  I'm sure the tool of canceling the race either beforehand or during also exists.  Prudent and fair use of these tools will probably cover most situations, and no matter what rules or regs are thought up, someone will still think of a way to game the system, or a case that is on the judgement line or not covered well anyway, so for me, it always comes down to judgement before rules and regs -- so give the right people the right tools to make the right judgements as they come up.

Finally, as for OVT in general,  IMO the results should me marked OVT if over the proscribed course limit.  Moreover, if the database shows many OVT results for a given person on a given course, the club should insist that they run a shorter course until their min/K results on courses they can finish in time indicate that they can handle the longer course.  The goal should be to have no OVTs in the results.  You need to strictly enforce OVT for a) as a safety expiry -- if OVT is strictly enforced, then OVT is a red flag to indicate a true problem and S&R can commence quicker (and quicker may matter); right now OVT is a "cry wolf" situation (oh, don't worry, so and so is always OVT), and b) out of respect for the meet workers -- it rankles me that some runners don't voluntarily show this respect -- if it needs to be enforced, so be it.

If there is a large population that needs to be over 3 hours, or meet volunteer time isn't an issue in practice, then the answer is simple -- increase the OVT time limit, but still stricly mark them and attempt to prevent them.  Doing so achievies all the goals in the previous paragraph.

Was that long enough :)

Reply by kent on Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm

kent
Num Posts: 38
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Warwick
First O: 1988

Regarding OVT and rankings: The rankings program does not automatically impose any OVT penalty. It has always been the Event Director's decision to impose the three hour limit or not.

Reply by FredR on Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm

FredR
Num Posts: 97
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map:
First O: 0

In retrospect, I had regretted that my original post was too long.  But Randy's post suggests long posts are not always *too* long.  Thanks.
The question of whether people are reasonable or not makes sense, but in practice it may be more of a degree of prudence.  In other words, even a small change in perceived outcome (e.g., the "cost" of a DNF for someone who is only mildly concerned about their ranking) may have a preportional impact on their level of prudence (e.g., how close the lightening gets before they bail).  I see this plenty of times on the golf course when lightening threatens.  Even though it's just a game, some people will opt to stay on the course a little longer because they have a good round going, or are down a hole and want the chance to get it back.  In the grand scheme of things, silly yes, but since it all depends on very subjective assessments of risks and probabilities, there's still plenty of room for biased reasonableness.
For other reasons in the past, I have suggested that we might look at increasing the number of runs that are thrown out for "bad luck" (as suggested on AP, a way to get people to orienteer more agressively and perhaps achieve higher performance).  But it might also be a way of tweaking the prudence calculation toward safety while rigourously enforcing a DNF (or any other) rule.

Reply by hughmac4 on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:48 pm

hughmac4
Num Posts: 182
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map:
First O: 1976

Interesting thread.  "Bee"ing the one who was bugged by yellowjackets at FCN, I was surprised that I was given a NC when the results were posted.  After my run a NC made sense to me at first -- it's what I would want to do for someone else if (s)he was covered with bee stings and looking glum -- but I was convinced by Ed that a NC was only an option BEFORE the start ... I understand the slippery slope of this kind of thing, and the potential for gaming the system.  Ow, my ankle.  ;)

I'll talk to kent about turning the NC into a crappy score instead.  And sheesh ... the scores were so high at FCN it won't even be that bad, even with something like 43 minutes on one control (#18), hanging around the finish getting up the nerve to go find my map & compass and drinking delicious Grape drink.

At least I won't have to carry that jar of yellowjackets around in the future for when my course starts to fall apart.  Those things are SCARY!!

Reply by FredR on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 9:26 am

FredR
Num Posts: 97
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map:
First O: 0

Thanks for weighing in Hugh.  Indeed, you looked pretty "glum" at registration when you returned.

However, as someone that has had systemic reactions to stings, and lost a fellow golfer to bee stings, I'm sensitive to the real danger they present.  So I would never dismiss or want to discourage someone taking prudent action based on their own assessment of the risk.

That seems to be the key point in this discussion--each person makes their own calculation of risk and no one else (including an ED or course setter) can know or challenge how another makes that calculation.  On one hand, that means an ED could not dismiss as unwarranted someone else's rational decision to abandon a run because of risk (e.g., bears, bees, lightening).  On the other hand, an ED cannot know of someone's dishonest appeal to danger to gain an advantage ("gaming").  Because of that unavoidable uncertainty, the easiest way out is to apply the USOF DNF rule without exception, eliminating the need to make any judgment of risk or rationality at all.

We are, however, generally a bunch of friends that like to orienteer, and therefore want to protect and act kindly toward each other.  Unlike a sprained ankle or scary animal rustling the bushes, I could see all the stings on Hugh's body and therefore had clear evidence of a potential risk.  That made it harder for me to resist agreeing to an exception to the rule.

I hate to gum up the works even more than I already have, but if Hugh in retrospect feels the NC was unwarranted, I would (as ED) go along with that as an act of good sportsmanship.  And, I've learned something too...

Reply by Steve on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:27 am

Steve
Num Posts: 402
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Paradise Farm
First O: 1993

Bee stings are visible. Lightning is seen by all, and can be judged as to severity. We recently had a thread discussing rattle snakes. A bear in the woods makes a good story, and may be scary to one person and not to another.  I have a good bear story involving Demon. Honestly an unleashed dog can be scarier to me, but that is up to the dog.

I feel the bottom line is that we are a local group. As much as we read the rankings, they are just for bragging rights, nothing more. Also, one event won't alter a whole year by that much.

I like the Canadian rules for uncrossable. Some parks have reasons that we may not understand (or agree with). How can you mark an uncrossable stream with a red hatch to indicate "We really mean it this time". Old eyes don't focus that well. Reasons for uncrossable may include ecology (marshes come to mind), saftey, or even health (how many of you realize that the top of the FCC map is fenced off because of human manure?)

Overtime is a little more tricky. A 10:00 AM start going four hours with a few sightings is not as concerning as a 1:00PM start without sightings. Age can also be a factor. It has been many years since I went OT. My first time I was ignorant and stubborn (two hours of trying new things at an HR weekend). My second time was when my start time was changed but my pink card stub was not, resulting in some very concerned people even though I was only five minutes over (to make matters worse, this was a night O) All other offences were by just a few minutes.

Those things said, each map should have a short list of guidelines that the courses setter must think about when designing

Reply by edscott on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:31 pm

edscott
Num Posts: 703
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Hickory Run 1:15000
First O: 1983

Several topics and subtopics here...

Reply by furlong47 on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:22 pm

furlong47
Num Posts: 372
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Bucks County Community College
First O: 1994

Well, I always wondered about that fence on FCC since there didn't appear to be anything in there. I guess now I know....

Reply by edscott on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:03 pm

edscott
Num Posts: 703
Primary Club: DVOA
Fav map: Hickory Run 1:15000
First O: 1983

Well sort of.. Yes the spray field for waste water from the park sewage plant is in there, but the water has been processed.  I've only seen it in operation once in my life so they must not spray very often.