Wrong + Wrong = Right? Wrong!
At the recent European Orienteering Championships, half of the women's field in the final of the Long Distance race were issued with control descriptions that contained an error - a wrong control code I believe.
Such a basic error should result in the race being declared invalid. Period. Half of the runners were affected, it certainly had a significant affect on the results to the point that they are meaningless (save for the fact that the winner, Simone Niggli, would still have won), so why are the results allowed to stand and be recorded in history?
Orienteering has a problem in that it competitors are reluctant to complain - it happens in New Zealand, and it seems to happen in international elite events. We all recognise that a huge amount of work is involved in organising an event, and when mistakes occur, while some competitors are left seething, the majority don't want to penalise organisers for the amount of work they have put in.
Orienteering needs to grow up. Guess what - mistakes sometimes occur, it's part of human nature. Rather than get embarrassed about how such imperfections can invade our perfectionist sport, and allow sympathy to get in the way of making rational decisions, we need to accept than when mistakes occur, it is not in the interests of our sport to allow meaningless results to stand.
While it would be unfortunate in this case for Niggli not to be crowned European Champion (there is no question she deserves to be so recognised), a race is not just about one person, it is not held to just find the winner. There are over 50 competitors in the race, half of them were sent on a wild goose chase - their rights are also relevant.
In House-Of-Honcho land, ideally common sense would prevail and someone should make the decision to invalidate the race, but it is probably too late. The IOF Event Advisor should not be in charge of an international event again - not for allowing the mistake to happen, but for allowing the results to stand. Part of his role is to (Rule 31.6) "ensure rules are followed, mistakes are avoided and that fairness is paramount".
Well, rules were not followed, mistakes were not avoided and fairness has gone out the window. That the Senior Event Advisor allowed the results to stand just because no-one protested the result is wrong, and it is time in such situations that some balls are shown and the correct decision made. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Such a basic error should result in the race being declared invalid. Period. Half of the runners were affected, it certainly had a significant affect on the results to the point that they are meaningless (save for the fact that the winner, Simone Niggli, would still have won), so why are the results allowed to stand and be recorded in history?
Orienteering has a problem in that it competitors are reluctant to complain - it happens in New Zealand, and it seems to happen in international elite events. We all recognise that a huge amount of work is involved in organising an event, and when mistakes occur, while some competitors are left seething, the majority don't want to penalise organisers for the amount of work they have put in.
Orienteering needs to grow up. Guess what - mistakes sometimes occur, it's part of human nature. Rather than get embarrassed about how such imperfections can invade our perfectionist sport, and allow sympathy to get in the way of making rational decisions, we need to accept than when mistakes occur, it is not in the interests of our sport to allow meaningless results to stand.
While it would be unfortunate in this case for Niggli not to be crowned European Champion (there is no question she deserves to be so recognised), a race is not just about one person, it is not held to just find the winner. There are over 50 competitors in the race, half of them were sent on a wild goose chase - their rights are also relevant.
In House-Of-Honcho land, ideally common sense would prevail and someone should make the decision to invalidate the race, but it is probably too late. The IOF Event Advisor should not be in charge of an international event again - not for allowing the mistake to happen, but for allowing the results to stand. Part of his role is to (Rule 31.6) "ensure rules are followed, mistakes are avoided and that fairness is paramount".
Well, rules were not followed, mistakes were not avoided and fairness has gone out the window. That the Senior Event Advisor allowed the results to stand just because no-one protested the result is wrong, and it is time in such situations that some balls are shown and the correct decision made. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Labels: orienteering
posted by Rob Crawford at 6:22 AM
3 Comments:
Aren't the rules written in such a way that they suggest that you shouldn't invalidate a course/race unless someone does actually protest?
I've never read the rules, but that is the impression I have always had. I'm probably just babbling a load of shit, like you do.
Good question. Like me, you are giving the appearance of babbling a load of shit while obviously intelligently knowing what you are talking about.
I was going to post about the rules but decided not to as it would make the post too long. In short, the rules could do with improvement around the area of course invalidation and protests. There is no IOF rule, or any implication as far as I can see, that courses should be invalidated on the basis of a protest or complaint only.
What about striking off those who have made the mistake, not once, as you should learn from mistakes but those with more than three swings at bat to foul every time.
There is nothing as far as I can see for removing crap controllers and I think there should be.
Post a Comment
<< Home