It looks like there was a problem with the e-punching system used at the Short-SM last Saturday, and that it *may* have influenced the M21 winner. There are strong suspicions that the 3 "punches" at the finish line weren't registering the same times, and the difference may have been as much as several seconds. And so far it looks like SOFT doesn't want to admit anything could have been wrong, or even talk about the possibility.

I think the system as it stands now, which requires you to punch at the finish, is bogus and has to be improved. And I imagine it will be improved.

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), September 11, 2000

Answers

Of course, we've put up with rough times for as long as orienteering has been a sport. At most A-meets, the start signal is someone sitting there with a stopwatch and a whistle, blowing the whistle whenever they notice it is a minute. The finish line is usually the end of a run-in (typically not marked) with another person standing there yelling out "time" when a runner crosses. Then, someone sitting at a table looks at a watch and writes down the time. I imagine errors of 2-5 seconds are common (sometimes benefiting the runner, sometimes hurting them).

Just because timing errors are common, doesn't mean we should accept them. The e-punching technology can be combined with an electric eye (Park World Tour uses this system).

It sounds to me like the problem was an error by the organizers. They really should have double checked (and probably checked during the actual competition) to ensure that all three finish line punches registered the same time.

Some interesting text from a Swedish newspaper.

Forsber (the Swedish O' Federation representative) does not want to make any comments about the suspicions that the men's winner on the short champs might have a time that is too good.

"We have not had an official protest," he said.

Could that be because the suspicions were not raised until after the "protest time" had run out?

"I don't want to comment on that."

It seems to me that protest or not, the organizers have a responsibility to do the best they can to set up a fair competition and, if they know there is a problem, to investigate it. If it turns out the problem occurred and affected the results -- the organizers should probably invalidate the results even if they don't get a protest.

-- Michael (meglin@juno.com), September 11, 2000.

Spike writes:

"Of course, we've put up with rough times for as long as orienteering has been a sport. At most A-meets, the start signal is someone sitting there with a stopwatch and a whistle, blowing the whistle whenever they notice it is a minute. The finish line is usually the end of a run-in (typically not marked) with another person standing there yelling out "time" when a runner crosses. Then, someone sitting at a table looks at a watch and writes down the time. I imagine errors of 2-5 seconds are common (sometimes benefiting the runner, sometimes hurting them)."

All very true. Even though some people strongly feel mass starts should have no place in a championship (first decision bias?), the above gets at some of the reasons why a mass started race is inherently fairer than an interval started race. If the recent Long Champs hadn't been mass started, almost for sure the Blue course would have had to have been voided.

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), September 11, 2000.

Maybe SOFT is embarrassed that they've embraced the Sport Ident system that requires punching as the act that records a runner's final time. Either Sport Ident will have to adopt the more reasonable method that Emit has or they will hopefully fall out of favor.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), September 11, 2000.

What is EMIT's more reasonable method? To not record an official finish time at all, but to require other methods to be used for that purpose? That could still be the method with SportIdent, there's nothing to stop you from not having a finish punch, but to record the elapsed time by other methods, and to use the card for control verification only (and splits, which have no effect on the results). But on the other hand, it really seems that SportIdent could build a base unit that could be networked with the other base units to share a clock.

But this does bring up the issue of timing accuracy. Spike's observations about our current methods are quite true, although I'd guess that it's rare that error would amount to more than a couple of seconds. But we have one-second precision. Is that appropriate? There's a trend in eastern CT and western MA to time to the nearest minute at local meets, which is quite unsatisfying. On the other extreme, I've heard people call for timing to less than one second when they've seens results from short courses that had ties in the top 10. I find this to be a non-issue. But is one second the proper precision?

I suspect that, if we didn't already have the convenient unit of a second, that the appropriate quantum would be somewhat larger, perhaps five seconds or so. If two people finish within two seconds of each other in an interval-started orienteering race, I'm hard pressed to see that it was anything other than a tie. There are so many variables we can't (or don't) control, from the casual nature of our starting lines, to having to wait a moment for a punch, to vegetation being trampled down for later runners. Not to mention the luck of subtle terrain details that can't be shown on a map, some of which affect runnability.

So if there were problems in Sweden, and they might have affected the results, it's not of much concern to me. If the runners were within a couple of seconds and may have gotten switched, it was a tie anyway as far as I'm concerned.

-- J-J (jjcote@juno.com), September 12, 2000.

And by the way, Swampfox, there's still a gievance pending on the Long-O Champs. The Blue course could yet be voided.

-- J-J (jjcote@juno.com), September 12, 2000.

J-J wrote: And by the way, Swampfox, there's still a gievance pending on the Long-O Champs. The Blue course could yet be voided.

I heard tale that the course was protested because there was a conspicuous lack of yoga controls. Is this really true? Why should a course be required to include yoga controls? When we decide chumpionships do we want to test orienteering or yoga? How is yoga at all relevant to the long-o?

And, even if the long-o or any other 1-day event is ever thrown out, what does that really mean? Would that mean that the race was never run? Can history be re-written on a mere whim?

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), September 12, 2000.

I'm sure that timing events using any method is prone to some error that may be a number of seconds for some, a minute for someone from Connecticut, or even microseconds if the meet is up to OK standards. However, I would always prefer more information to less. A second sounds like a good number to quote, and because finish times are usually listed in results along with placing, people can decide for themselves what's what.

The timers should always do their best because one second can mean the difference between a chumpionship and also-ran. If a mistake is discovered, it should be corrected. Equipment should be checked out and a backup timing system used if possible. In the old days, for track meets, they would get a group of officials to start and stop several watches for each runner. It was quite reasonable to expect times consistent within 0.1 seconds. I think orienteering could do that, or settle for 1-second accuracy. We'll always accept the changing conditions on the course and luck will be a factor.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), September 12, 2000.

Bottom line is that I think that one second is a fine unit to use, that one minute is way too coarse, and that anything less than a second is a waste of effort. (Certainly makes sense for the short events held on a track, but not for something with a winning time of 20 minutes or more.) And I think a reasonable effort to be accurate to about one second is appropriate.

-- J-J (jjcote@juno.com), September 13, 2000.