Sunday, May 1, 2016

Why there are no DSQ for runners who were crossing the marsh??? IOF, please, answer!!

Why there are no DSQ for runners who were crossing the marsh during World Cup Sprint Q??? IOF, please, answer!!



ISSOM2007:
100 m of unfair advantage is the good reason to make several disqualifications!

Such situation have a term - provocation. Runners are provoked to break the rules (I assume that some runners did it because of lack in ISSOM2007 knowledge - march is rare object during sprint races).

1) First of all: It is better TO AVOID PROVOCATIONS! Recently IOF during seminar at Riga gave a clear suggestion about it.
2) If organizers really like such legs - please, put tape along this coast line to give runners a clear sign: 'it is not OK to cross this territory'. That's a really good practice actually (especially according to flower-beds or other olive situations).
3) Runners who get unfair advantage must be disqualified. By organizers or by them-self. I remember the case when Olav Lundanes made DSQ for him-self during NM-Sprint (I was a main coach in Halden SK this time and actually I still don't think that Olav got unfair advantage - but he broke the rule - that's true).

Almost the same story happened before at World Cup race when several runners crossed red lines without sanctions!

I don't understand: what's the point with these exactions in form of so called athletes licences (with aim to fill IOF Anti-Doping Fund) if there are no fairness in basic things?? #Fairplay #WorldCup2016

29 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well. I assume that IOF Adviser has made some job to check map and so on. Without OCAD-file its almost impossible to make such measurements.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Following the ISSOM shown in the post, the 0.25 thickness relates to the marsh line, the black borderline has to be 0.18 thick

      Delete
  2. no he is just telling you that a black outline has to be 0.18 thick to mark an impassable marsh. Not 0.25 like mentioned by mistake by alessia tenani.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. alessio, sorry

      Delete
    2. Thanks for comment then! By the way - Sprint final offers really good courses!

      Delete
    3. Yes, just saw it now! It could be interesting to know how is in the Ocad file, then. And, of course, it should have been taped since it was in the optimal route choice

      Delete
  3. How do you know that many runners crossed the marsh? I could not see it directly from the split times at least? Have you got any statistics/proof of who run there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that runners have reported about several rule-breakers from different countries. I don't have exact numbers.

      Delete
  4. I can't see how this is any more of a provocation than a leg involving an unpassable wall or some unpassable vegetation. The ISSOM clearly states it's not allowed to cross, just as it does with the unpassable marsh. Now, in this particular case it's also very readable, so no excuses there either. I think one should expect runners at this level to know the ISSOM. In my opinion this is not the organizer's fault (except if it was the case that runners who broke the rules didn't get disqualified), but solely the responsibility of the athletes themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If there will be сontroller, who DQ people, it wasnˇt now problem. I think, that march outline must be same bold as impassible fence. At map it looks like passible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The map is correct. The symbol for outline of impassable marsh (or lake) is black 0.18. Impassable fence and wall are 0.4. Runners should know better (if any did cross), but also organisers should tape it off and have a marshall there on such legs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I still think it is difficult to discuss this when I don't know if 2 or 20 runners broke the rule. Can you Mike based on the split times or other means estimate approximately how many did this in each of the four heats? It should be easy to see, but when looking (very briefly) at one of the heats I only saw Novikova being fastest, but her time was not extremely good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment and idea, but unfortunately such job does not make sense already. Cause results protocols are official now, marshals or team officials lost time window to make protests (same story as from World Cup Sprint Relay I have mentioned before). But we have to think how to avoid such stories! For the moment I can see only one reasonable option from all this bad stories (Portugal 2014, Sweden 2015, France 2011, and so on) - lets initiate the creation of international organizers team. Matthias and Simone Niggli give us a great opportunity! http://vinogradovcoach.blogspot.ru/2014/07/i-totally-support-niggli-concept-of-new.html

      Delete
    2. No clear evidence from a review of win splits, at least among the top 10 or so finishes in each heat. Only Bobach and maybe Helmut stand out in mens A. Of course some of the later finishes may have taken the short route but there times are still in a normal range for the leg so don't stand out.

      Delete
  8. Mike; my main concern is to find out if this was really a problem or only one or two runners. I don't want to DSQ anybody in this race, but if there were really many runners doing this, this is a much stronger case to forward to IOF/others than if it was just two runners. I will not use this example to anybody if I don't know approximately how many did this. If I have an approximate number of runners (and clear indication from split times), it could be a good case to push forward with in order to try to secure future changes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope that involved runners would make confession - that's the only 100% option to find full list of these several runners. I believe in fair-play and I believe in future of Orienteering. Please! Every-one who broke that rule - give confession! Results are non-changeable already! But we need to prove that Orienteering is a clean sport!

      Delete
    2. Anomaly detection methods from mathematical statistics works good in such cases. I am skeptical about 'eye detection' without advanced mathematical calculations.

      Delete
  9. maybe it is a reproduction issue but that doesn't look like the correct symbol for impassable marsh (309) in the extract above or in the full map on the WoO page http://news.worldofo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WC2016_sprint_qual-MenA_s.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, ISSOM is inconsistent, in that it clearly says:
    2.2 Barriers - Black line width is used to show passability
    Barriers, such as high walls, high fences and high rock faces, affect route choices and shall be
    represented unambiguously. Therefore, these features shall be represented with a prominent thick
    black line.
    Obstacles which can be crossed, such as fences and small rock faces, are represented with a
    significantly thinner black line than the barrier features.
    passable fence = 0.21mm
    small rock face = 0.30mm
    if these are passable then it makes no sense for a 0.18mm black line to be impassable...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are talking about line barriers. Water and marsh are area barriers, and ISSOM does not mandate the same line thickness. The fact that there is blue with a black line around it should be sufficient evidence to a runner that it must not be crossed. Blue areas with a blue line, or no line can be crossed. If your argument was followed, then there would be thick black lines around buildings, gardens and impassable vegetation. They are not needed because these are all area symbols, not line symbols.

      I also think M Vinagradov has done his argument no favour - to point at people as cheats but then not identify them is weak.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your comments about logic of ISSOM2007!

      As for concrete list of runners: I don't have exact names - I am not team official at this competition and I can not blame particular runners. I blame organizers that they did not provide fairness at this leg. Same way I was blaming organizers of World Cup Sprint Relay 2014 (runners crossed forbidden area without any sanctions - in 2014 that influenced on the prize positions!)

      Delete
    3. What do you expect from me?.. Statements like this: 'My runners reported that they saw this and this particular boys running into the marsh and some person with outfit of this and this nations, and probably 1 or 2 girls in outfits of this nation who where coming to the control #16 by climbing out of marsh'?

      There is the list of facts:
      1. Non-identified runners crossed the marsh.
      2. No-one got DSQ by this action.

      That's all.

      Delete
    4. Ludomir ParfianowiczMay 9, 2016 at 2:30 AM

      Have you been to this place? The marsh is realy "impassable". Even if somebody managed to cross the marsh in adventure mode he/she would lost a lot and penalized himself.

      Delete
    5. If you run all the way through the marsh - that's true. But whats about the short 10 m cut near the end of fence?.. (as on the picture)

      Delete
    6. Ludomir ParfianowiczMay 9, 2016 at 10:31 PM

      The bush is also completely impassable, fence goes into marsh, marsh itself is very tough. It would really hurt the runner.

      Delete
  11. At least this story gives for athletes stimulus to renew knowledge about ISSOM 2007 and current IOF competition rules.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am encouraged to see the problems with legal impassability highlighted here. This strikes me as inevitably problematic for ISSOM and urban/Sprint orienteering. I don't have a clean solution.

    However I am very sure that we do not need to import these problems into ISOM-based forest orienteering, which has never had a significant problem. Unfortunately this is exactly what the pending ISOM 201X is proposing.
    Apologies for changing the subject, but I think this is also very important, and directly related.

    ReplyDelete