I’ve encountered several events this year where control descriptions have not been attached to master maps.

And while on master maps (and masters for map corrections), wherever possible, they should be to the same scale as the maps to be used by competitors, and they should also include the map corrections relevant to the course.

Fences!

Since the last issue of O Know I’ve received several requests, including one from a club, to comment again on the matter of fences and fence crossings. (Coincidently, this was also discussed in the May 2006 Controllers' Corner – you can find all previous columns on the OT website).

The event last month at Bothwell included a number of fence crossings. Several of the fences were certainly difficult to cross, especially by those of us who are becoming rather less agile as a by-product of age impairment, but there are other (related) factors to consider as well.

Fairness: Difficult fences (whether they are just tight, or sheep mesh, or well decorated with barbed wire) will slow the progress of competitors to a greater or lesser extent, and younger and older orienteers will tend be the more disadvantaged. This threatens the fairness of a course where some competitors have more difficulty negotiating fences than others.

Duty of care: We have a duty of care to all competitors. Sure, we all acknowledge that we compete at our own risk – but only up to a point. If a course planner knowingly sets a course where there is no option but to cross a difficult fence, then maybe that could be regarded as failing in duty of care should a competitor be injured in attempting to cross it.

Care of property: We also have to exercise duty of care over property (available free of charge to us by obliging land owners / manager), and climbing through or over fences can damage them. How often have we read on the notice that we should take care when crossing fences and to report any damage to the organisers? I have never heard of a single person reporting damage – but I am quite sure that some fences have suffered considerably during an event, and we are liable for that damage.

So on the grounds of fairness, possible risk to competitors, and possible damage to property, the onus is on course planners and controllers to exercise their judgement when planning and checking courses.

Earlier this year when describing the functions of a controller, I put the view that there is a responsibility to check more than the control sites, and this means checking for possible problems along the probable routes of the courses. Under our course structure (currently being reviewed) for state events, Courses 5 to 8 in particular need to allow for the younger, the older and beginning orienteers. These courses should avoid difficult obstacles. Course 5 is receiving particular attention in the current discussions, and the present guidelines identify this as a hard navigation but shorter course with control sites on features that are strong both on the map and in the terrain (i.e. to cater for poorer vision). But it has also been suggested in discussion that the Course 5 should avoid legs which involve crossing difficult fences. I strongly support that recommendation.

So what do we do about problem fences? I suggest the following:

• Where possible, we should avoid setting legs that cross difficult fences.

• If such fence crossings cannot be avoided, then we need to make sure the map shows where there are easier crossing points (e.g. gates) – and if these are not clear on the map, then show them as crossing points. Course legs should be set so that competitors do not have to go too far off line (on a reasonable route choice) to make use of identified crossings.

• If the fence cannot be avoided and there is no obvious easy crossing point, then we need to provide a safe and easy crossing (eg. a stile, hay bales, boxes), indicate its position on the map, and to consider making it a compulsory crossing point. Our sport should be fun and fair, that we can all participate in within our comfort zone and in safety.

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (July 07)

When things don’t go quite right: Problems, complaints and protests.

Over recent weeks we have had some really great events – well planned and well organised with high quality courses. But even the best laid plans can run into problems from time to time. Let’s look at three specific problems that have arisen over recent events. In doing so I apologise to the course planners and controllers involved. Some of these problems could have been avoided, but it’s easy to be wise after the event – and we can all learn by openly discussing them and sharing the issues.

1. Royal George. This was probably the most enjoyable event of the year to date. The planning was really innovative with mass starts and butterfly loops which kept us all competing to the limit. There were many positive comments after the event. However, the proximity of the spectator control (through which everyone passed) to the finish SI units confused a number of competitors. Now the organisers had provided a thorough briefing before each of the mass starts, and had pointed out the need to be very careful with that control site and the finish. But a complaint was made to the organisers, and as a result a protest was lodged and the jury upheld the protest. Such an outcome is obviously disappointing for event organisers, but once a protest is lodged against a result, then it has to be resolved by reference to the Orienteering Australia Competition Rules. The final section of this column (the complaints and protest procedure) looks at this issue in more depth.

2. St Helens – error with master maps. At the middle distance event on the Monday of the long weekend, an error crept in with an incorrectly drawn control circle on one of the master maps. Consequently about half the competitors were looking for the particular control on the wrong feature. In the days BSI (Before SportIdent), there would have been no alternative but to cancel the course affected. However, SI enables individual legs (splits) to be identified, and an average (median) time substituted for all competitors for the two legs affected. This appears to have been a sensible solution to the problem, and accepted by competitors. No doubt we could argue about the various ways in which the SI splits could have been analysed and amended, but the key point is that the problem was amicably and fairly solved. The main point to be learned is that master maps need to be carefully checked by both the course planner and the controller.

On the day, some competitors were reflecting on how much more common such errors were in the past where we did not have a computer program like Condes to assist in our course planning, and when, for events requiring pre-marked maps, every map had to be hand drawn (unless you were game enough to use the big old stamp pad – an experience best forgotten!).

3. St Helens – a control is moved. Also at the same event it appears that on one course a control was disturbed during the event. Most of us at some stage have experienced a missing control when we’ve been competing in parks or close to urban areas (which is why we generally use locking controls for those events), when young kids obviously think it a bit of a joke to move or hide a control (or a passing cow has decided on a change of diet).

At St Helens it is most improbable that there was outside interference, so we are faced with the likelihood that a competitor on the day moved the control. Hopefully this was unintentional – somehow knocking the control (well) aside when going through it. But if it was intentional, then it is a serious offence.

Rule 26.1 of the Competition Rules states:

All persons taking part in an event shall behave with fairness and honesty. They shall have a sporting attitude and a spirit of friendship. Competitors shall show respect for each other, for officials, journalists, spectators and the inhabitants of the competition area. The competitors shall be as quiet as possible in the terrain. Competitors or spectators shall not interfere with control equipment.

And rule 26.11:

A competitor who breaks any rule or who benefits from the breaking of any rule, may be disqualified.

So what should be done? Unless there is a witness, then it is difficult to determine who might have moved a control, although computer "interrogation" of the SI unit of the moved control can identify who went through that control and when.

Without question, any competitor who can be shown to have moved a control, must be disqualified from the event. But I believe that if such behaviour is proven, then there should also be disciplinary action. Such action is outlined in the constitution of Orienteering Australia, although it is directed mainly towards elite orienteers who offend. The OA constitution indicates that an offending orienteer can be disqualified, suspended, fined or otherwise dealt with. The constitution of Orienteering Tasmania allows for the expulsion of a member found "guilty of conduct which contravenes any of the objectives of OT".

Possibly OT should look at other forms of discipline, such as expelling an orienteer who is a current member of a Tasmanian orienteering team from that team, or possibly fining that person – especially if the course has to be cancelled as a result of the moved control. The amount of the fine could, say, reflect the time and effort of the officials in planning that course, and the travel and entry costs of the competitors whose course is cancelled.

The complaints and protest procedure.

If as a competitor you feel that you have been seriously disadvantaged in your event (the most common concern is a mis-placed control), then you should register a complaint with the event organiser (usually the controller), who will reflect on the problem and advise you of a decision. For example, at St Helens where the master map was in error, competitors were advised that the results would be amended using the split times.

If you are satisfied with the response to your complaint, then it ends there. If you are dissatisfied, then you are entitled to lodge a protest. This requires the controller to convene a three member jury to rule on the protest which can be dismissed or upheld, and can rule on an amendment to the results.

However, while the national competition rules specify all the ins and outs of the protest procedure, a jury is required to follow those rules. The rules have been devised primarily for Group A (Australian Championships, Australian 3-Day and NOL) events, and Group B (Australian Schools Championships, State Championships, and Badge) events. Group C events are all other events on the states’ fixture lists. For Tasmania that is all of our local, twilight, schools and TOS events.

While the rules are designed specifically for Group A and B events, they also apply by default to Group C events unless a State association has its own rules for these events. Our constitution states that one of the purposes of OT is to "maintain affiliation with and, unless expressly stated otherwise, be subject to the rules and regulations of OA". Apart from the documentation describing the age classes / courses for use in state level events, I can find no other statement where Orienteering Tasmania has "expressly stated" that other rules apply.

Now this creates a real problem for a jury called on to adjudicate a protest arising at a local or state event. The only book of rules that technically applies is the Competition Rules for Orienteering Australia Foot Orienteering Events. In other words, the rules designed expressly for national level events have to be applied – and you could say that this is something of an overkill.

I think it is time for Orienteering Tasmania to consider some guidelines for Group C events which ensure that we continue to adhere to the highest standards of events, but have reasonable flexibility relative to the nature of the event.

But not for one minute am I suggesting that we should tread lightly in response to serious offences. Any competitor who breaks the basic rule of fair play deserves to be dealt with severely. We have a great sport in which we compete in fairness and friendship. Let’s keep it that way!

John Brammall

Controllers’ Corner (August 2007)

• My recent column referring to when things don’t go quite right may have given the impression that I was dissuading people from registering complaints or protests. Not at all! I apologise if I gave this impression. We all have the right (which we should exercise) to register our concerns about an event. Only by going through that process can everyone involved learn from possible mistakes that have been made, and ensure the overall fairness of an event.

• At the last EVOC local event at Trevallyn, the organisers Sussan Best and Maureen Le Fevre introduced a fun element by including a trivia question at each control. If you got one right you lost a minute off your time, and a minute was added if you got one wrong. Among the questions was: "what end should plastic cup packets be opened?". Sussan informed me that "there was a 100% pass rate (including from the southerners at the event, which shows we all read his controllers corner!! ". Very satisfying!

• A by-product of the trivia questions is that it interrupted the competitor’s flow through a control, giving us very good practice at having to re-focus on the next leg.

• Congratulations to Chris Brown on her work as the National Controller for the JWOC carnival at Dubbo. It was no easy role to take on – but as far as we who were there could see, the events went really smoothly – a credit to Chris. When the bid was granted to Australia several years ago, the IOF specifically asked that Chris be invited to take on that role – a clear sign of the high level of regard with which she is held both here and overseas.

• Chris’s responsibility did not extent to ensuring that plastic cup packets were correctly opened. The Dubbo events probably scored about 1/10 on that one! I’m sometimes asked why this seems to be one of my favourite ‘hobby horses’. It’s simply because it is an obvious health risk issue which we can so easily minimise. On an associated matter, I was surprised to see that on one day of the recent Dubbo carnival, a bowl of water and soap was provided outside the toilets. This would have been fine if there had been running water – but using an (unchanged?) bowl of water becomes a health risk. Some years ago a significant number of orienteers competing in a major event in Sweden became infected with hepatitis B (I gather this was one of the first major outbreaks of the disease and was labelled ‘orienteers disease’ at the time). Investigations identified the possible cause being that some orienteers when approaching controls got scratched on the bushes leaving some blood, which could have then been transferred to other orienteers who happened to meet the same bit of vegetation and been scratched. However, later investigations indicated that a far more likely source of contamination was the sharing of washing water at the toilets. Only use washing facilities if the water is running. The hand-wipes are a far better way to go!

Partial Maps.

Now let’s briefly visit an issue which I touched on last Year (October ’06) – the use of partial maps. We are making more and more use of digitally (computer) printed maps or photocopied maps. Even the Australian Championships maps this year were digitally printed, although OA permission is still required to move away from off-set printed maps.

When event organisers decide to print off an area of a larger map for use at an event, then they need to make sure of a few things.

N/S gridlines: If the scale is altered (say from 1:15,000 to 1:10,000) then the North/South gridlines also need to be altered. Mapping requirements are that these be at an interval representing 500m for a 1:15,000 map and 250m for a 1:10,000 map. This requires making modifications to the OCAD map.

OT Policy also requires that partial maps include the following: Scale, Scale bar, Contour interval, magnetic North arrow and a legend (either on the map or available).

Course planners and Controllers need to be aware that using a partial map involves more than just selecting the area of map required and printing it. The above information requires some modifications to the partial map to be used.

These points are covered on the OT website (see POLICY/Maps/information to go on OT maps). If you read this you will also see that there is other information that should be on a (whole) map, and which should be available to competitors even when a partial map is being used. This is easily done by posting a copy of the whole map at the assembly area. However correct gridlines, scale, scale bar, contour intervals and a north arrow must still be on the partial map.

John Brammall

Controllers' Corner (September 2007)

One of the things even more depressing than making a really stupid navigational error is making an organisational error. At least with navigation errors, the only person affected is you. With an organisational error, chances are that many competitors will be affected. One of the tools that has greatly helped organisers is control description software. There are a few different versions around, but the one used by Orienteering Tasmania is Condes. We currently use version 7, but hopefully by the time you read this, we will have purchased the updated version (version 8), which has a number of significant improvements.

Apart from the obvious advantage of being able to generate both symbolic and textual control descriptions, Condes has many features which help the controller:

• it ensures that only one control description is associated with a control number, and when used in conjunction with an OCAD copy of the map, ensures that transcription errors don’t occur when creating master maps;
• it can calculate the course distances;
• enables you to easily print multiple copies of master maps, thus ensuring that there are enough maps to support 2 minute start intervals at events where competitors mark their own maps.

There are OCAD versions of almost all of OT’s maps, so if you are planning an event, one of the first things you should do is get hold of Condes and an OCAD copy of the event map. A word of caution – it is still the course setter’s responsibility to make sure the control description is accurate (Condes assumes you know what symbol to use and what column to use on the control description).

The control description must unambiguously describe the feature that the control flag is placed at, and should give the competitor as much information as possible, for example, heights of rock features, especially in an area where there are many rock features. When creating your control description, you should always have a copy of the control description guidelines (down-loadable from http://www.orienteering.asn.au/technical/ if you don’t have a copy).

For advice on using Condes with your event, contact Greg Hawthorne (mapping@tasorienteering.asn.au)

Control description software is only one of the many advances that we take for granted in today’s orienteering. At the 1988 Asia-Pacific orienteering championships at Littlechilds Creek, the water provided at the drinks controls was in big garbage bins (although we probably provided two or three cups). I recall filling one of the bins from a creek, and noticing that the water contained some sediment from the creek – simple solution – we simply filtered the water through a handkerchief! After the competition, we tipped the remaining 90% of the original volume out, so at least that aspect of the sport hasn’t changed.

Greg Hawthorne

Controllers Corner (October 2007)

Report from Scotland.

You might recall that a couple of issues ago I promised to report on whether the organisers at the Scottish 6 Days opened their drink cups from the correct end. Unfortunately family circumstances prevented us from getting to the event. However, Nigel Davies has reported that the event used ‘drink stations’ where filled cups were sitting on tables all ready for runners. (I gather an alternative was to look up and open your mouth – it was a rather wet event from all reports.)

The use of separate drink stations has been referred to in the column before. Australia favours the placing of drinks at actual control sites. Having separate drink stations means they must be correctly located on the map and on the ground (they are usually put along tracks), and they become additional navigational features on the map which can affect the course design.

Running up and running down.

We are now well into the State League series (with the Tasmanian Championships only a week away as I write this). This series is run according to national badge standards using recognised age classes. To compete "officially" in these events, you are required to run the prescribed course for your age class. However, you can deviate from this. You are permitted to "run up" in a course (and age class). For example, as an M65 runner, my prescribed course is Course 5 (in Tasmania).

However, if I wish, I can officially run Course 4, but in doing so, I would have to run in the M60 class. I can even run Course 1, but I would have to enter as an M21. Younger competitors can run in an older class – for example a W12 runner can compete in W16s, or in any course and class that is rated ‘higher’ than the prescribed course for W12. Technically women can run in men’s courses – probably an unlikely option, and is most likely to happen (and has happened) in relay events where a woman can be a runner in a men’s team.

Of course you can always choose to run an easier/shorter course than your prescribed one. After all, it is better to run a course that you consider suitable for your level of fitness and experience than to take on a more difficult course which you feel is possibly beyond your comfort zone. However, in a badge level event this will mean that your result will be identified as "unofficial" What we know as the TOS Series is somewhat different. You choose whatever course you want to run. You don’t have to run the same course every event. You accumulate points in whatever courses you run. Essentially, though, if we want to amass as many points as possible, we are best sticking to the same course for the year’s events. Occasionally a competitor (mainly because of injury or time constraints) runs in a course that is much shorter than their ‘normal’ course. I’m aware of several instances where a regular Course 1 or 2 runner has competed in Course 4. Even though they might be recovering from injury, they still win the course – sometimes by a large margin, and they take the maximum 20 points. This can very much affect the points for the other (regular) runners in the course. In the instances of which I’m aware, the competitor has generally requested that they be considered "unofficial" and not be counted in the points. This is a welcome, and I think proper, solution. The runner in question gets to test his or her recovery without the risk of running in a longer, more taxing course, but the points among the regular runners are not affected. This is something that I think competitors should consider when "running down" in TOS events. It is also a responsibility for organisers to ensure that fairness prevails, and they need to look closely when processing results. Maybe even a phone call or email to a competitor to ask whether they would mind their time being unofficial on the course in question.

An invitation

We are coming towards the end of our season – certainly the ‘big event’ season. Why not think back over the year (maybe look back over your maps) and see if you can identify the best set course that you experienced during the year. Drop me an email with the event and course that you identify, and a brief statement why you nominate that course.

John

Controllers Corner (November 2007)

Orienteering Formats

The last few events have taken us through the full gambit of all our orienteering formats*: (* Orienteering is organised under four disciplines (Foot-O, Ski-O, Trail-O and MTBO). The formats are the race types that can be held within each of the disciplines.) Long Distance, Middle Distance, Sprint and Relay. It is interesting that only a few years ago many of us were very hesitant about adopting the Middle Distance and Sprint formats, and now we appear to be enjoying them to the full. (Even David Marshall was heard to express positive comments following the recent Sprint event!)

It is worth briefly visiting each of these formats to see what is special about each one. The following points have been summarised from the information provided in Appendix 8 of the Competition Rules for Orienteering Australia.

Long Distance. This is the classic format with which we are all familiar. The characteristics of long distance courses is that they should have a mix of technical difficulties with an emphasis on route choice. In addition, they should be a test of speed and physical endurance (appropriate to the age class). The maps used are generally 1:15,000 and 1:10,000, with the latter being used more for older age classes and when the terrain detail warrants the larger scale. Recommended winning times vary across the age classes.

Relay. The relay is the main team format in orienteering, characterised by a mass start, with each runner tagging the next team member. Teams are usually of three, but can be any number. The requirements are fairly similar to that of the Long Distance format with a mix of technical difficulties and route choice (on a smaller scale because courses are shorter). The nature of this format means competitors are often running in close proximity to others, and controls are often placed fairly close together requiring concentration. Running speed plays an important part in this format. Map scale is usually 1:10,000. Recommended winning times vary across the age classes.

Middle Distance. The emphasis in this format is on technical difficulty (and is best suited to technically difficult terrain). For this format, the course planner looks to incorporate technical complexity, quite a lot of controls and with changes of direction all requiring fast accurate orienteering. Concentration is essential throughout. The map scale is usually 1:10,000. Winning times should be around 30 – 35 minutes.

Sprint. This format emerged as part of the efforts of the IOF to make orienteering more visible to the public and more appealing to the media, and generally takes place in very runnable parks, streets or forest. Obviously the emphasis is on high speed but with technical and difficult route choices and a large number of controls on courses, requiring a high degree of concentration by the runners. Map scales can be 1:5,000 or 1:4,000. Maps use slightly different (additional) symbols designed mainly to indicate passage ways through complex buildings etc. Winning time for elites is meant to be 12 – 15 minutes. It is generally accepted that when Sprint format is open to all age classes, longer winning times (eg. 20 minutes) are used in course planning.

As I said above, we have recently experienced the full menu of these events as part of our State League (and Championship) program. I think you will agree that they were all excellent events!

The last event was the relays held at Five Mile Beach. The area here generally lacked features, but this was overcome by excellent course setting incorporating butterfly loops. The Course Planner (Lee Andrewartha) did stretch the rules a bit with control placement and control descriptions. Technically a control should only be placed on a clearly mapped feature. Lee in fact used control sites in the rolling contours of the pine forest that were simply high points or depressions - even though the map did not specifically show them as specific features. However, event Controller (Wendy Andrewartha) provided clear instructions and examples to explain this, and the actual control placements when these ‘features’ were used were highly visible. The basic principal of fairness to all competitors was kept to – helped of course by the nature of a relay where all team members visit all controls on their courses.

The fact that Lee and Wendy managed to bend the rules but maintained fairness should not be seen as a green light to plonk controls anywhere. Controls must be placed on mapped features. If on any occasion any rules are deliberately bent or broken for a specific event, then all competitors must be fully informed. Lee and Wendy did this well.

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (December 2007)

Social Risk and Enjoyment

In Launceston EVOC has been assisting the Launceston State Schools Sports Association to run a series of Friday afternoon orienteering sessions for grade 5 and 6 children from some 12 primary schools. If all the students from all the schools all turn up on the same day, that gives us between 300 and 350 children all running off on one of three courses in what could be taken for total chaos. But in fact a good majority of the children are fast acquiring the basic skills of orienteering. Others mightn’t be quite so involved or enthusiastic, and while their orienteering skills might not be developing apace, it is interesting that they seem to be acquiring many of the orienteering excuses we would all be familiar with: the control wasn’t there; I fell and twisted my ankle; the map is wrong!

The main aim of the program has been to give children what is hopefully an enjoyable experience of "proper" orienteering, so that hopefully, some time in the future, some of them might be tempted to try our sport again. The kids certainly appear to be enjoying their Friday afternoon orienteering!

In contrast, I was sitting in a waiting room the other day when one of the other clients addressed me by name and reminded me that he had orienteered for a while a few years back. He then went on to say that he gave up after a disastrous day at Diddleum when he spent ages looking for controls without success. He hasn’t been orienteering again since! Clearly it had not been an enjoyable experience, and we lost a club member (although until this conversation, we didn’t know why).

While many of my remarks in this column have emphasised the more technical aspects of orienteering and the prime role of a controller to ensure fairness, the reality is we keep orienteering because we enjoy it. But clearly enjoyment can be fragile. And those of us who have continued to participate in our sport have had orienteering experiences far from enjoyable at the time, but have managed to persist. While developing our fitness and skills can make us more competent orienteers (and therefore more likely to succeed and therefore enjoy), others can play a role in this. Courses that are well set and well controlled so that they are both fair and challenging contribute to our enjoyment. But as well, the social environment of orienteering has an important part to play in our enjoyment. If we didn’t or couldn’t spend almost as much time talking over our courses with fellow orienteers as we had running them, then the experience would be far less enjoyable. In fact after a bit of a disastrous run, it is the social give and take afterwards that may well help us to see where we might have made mistakes, and that it wasn’t really all that bad – a sort of social safety net to cheer us up! Sadly that doesn’t seem to have been the case for the gentleman at the Diddleum event!

A number of years ago at an OA Development Conference, a group of us were looking at the risks of orienteering. Again, there are two sides to look at. The Course Planner and the Controller are required to organise an event in such a way as to minimise risk to competitors and property. But it was social risk that we looked at.

While orienteering probably can’t be classified as an "extreme" sport, it can take us out of our comfort zone – especially when we are new to the sport. One of the most common "excuses" that we hear from people when we invite them to try orienteering is "oh no – I’d get lost"! For many, the bush environment and the (remote) possibility of getting lost, is too risky for them. But even when someone does decide to give it a try, the orienteering "environment" is a very daunting one. What most of us now take for granted in registering for an event, getting a map, control descriptions, copying on a course from a master map, being given a start time, being timed - all of these can be quite intimidating. As well the newcomer is probably very much aware of the core social group of club orienteers who obviously know each other well and who talk in ‘orienteeringese" – leaving the person further intimidated. Whenever we try to put ourselves in a new social situation we experience a sense of risk. For some people the sense of both physical and social risk is too much for them. They try orienteering once or twice, and then disappear. It is probably not surprising that most of us in orienteering were introduced to the sport by either family or friends – and the social "risk" was minimal.

OK – so where’s this all leading to? The point I want to make is that no matter how brilliant and challenging the courses might be, and how well controlled and technically exact and fair the event might be, those things alone don’t necessarily mean that the orienteering will be enjoyable. It is much more likely to be an enjoyable experience if you feel welcome at the event, and that someone comes up to you afterwards and asks you about your course, what route options you chose, where you felt you went well, or maybe not so well. You mightn’t be into course planning or training as a controller – but you can do your bit in welcoming newcomers and making them feel that its not all that risky – and in fact that orienteering is really enjoyable!

---------------------------------

I was rather "under-whelmed" by my request last month for nominations for great events or courses for 2007. Most of us were rather spoilt with a pretty extensive menu of local, state, national and international events – a rather extraordinary year! Certainly for me the experiences of Dubbo with JWOC and Australian Schools Champs and the Australian Champs were special. Burra was great (Easter), as were the Oceania Champs in the ACT. But on the home scene I would give my vote for the most "enjoyable" event to Christine Brown for her TOS event at Royal George with the mass starts and butterfly loop courses!

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (February 2008)

Happy New Year! Hopefully in 2008, you will all enjoy your orienteering and achieve what you want to achieve from our great sport. Remember, the two most basic principles of the sport is that we enjoy it, and that the competition is fair.

Embargoes

In this copy of O Know you will see the list of properties (maps) embargoed for the Australian 3 Day Championships, Easter, 2009.

The Competition Rules for Orienteering Australia Foot Orienteering Events state that for a national championship "The competition terrain shall not have been used for orienteering for as long as possible prior to the competition, so that no competitor has an unfair advantage" Rule 14.2. That rule applies to national championships. For major state events, the rules state that areas to be used be embargoed for at least three months.

So what does an embargo mean?

It’s really defined according to rule 26.6: "Any attempt to survey or train in the competition terrain is forbidden, unless explicitly permitted by the organiser". In good old school terms, the embargoed areas are out "of bounds", and the wrath of the headmaster will fall on you if you venture into the forbidden areas. (In my school days that mean ‘six of the best’ from the headmaster’s cane, or a Saturday morning detention - generally preferred, being less painful, and my teachers had a tendency to sleep in on Saturday mornings). In orienteering, "A competitor who breaks any rule, or who benefits from the breaking of any rule, may be disqualified Rule" 26.11.

Clearly, gaining knowledge of the terrain gives an orienteer an unfair advantage over someone who has no knowledge of it – i.e. it is important for the fairness factor. I think it is also important for the fun factor. To me, standing at the start for an event when I have never been in that terrain before and never seen the map, is one of the great ‘excitements’ of the sport.

Of course, rules are made to be bent or ignored (by the organisers, that is). There will be no embargo of Trevallyn Recreation Area for the Easter 09 events to be held there. An embargo of the area would be essentially unenforceable given that it is a public area. In addition most EVOC members in particular use and train in the area, and are already highly familiar with the reserve. Some events will be held in the reserve in 2008, but none in the general area to be used at Easter 09. This area will also be remapped. But the bottom line is that any orienteer may make whatever use they like of the Reserve through to the Australian 3 Day.

A couple of other factors over recent years have also seen a little less emphasis placed on embargoes. First, areas in which to orienteer are (in some states and countries) becoming more difficult to find, and so there is a need to re-use areas for major events over shorter periods than in the past. Second, the Leibnitz Convention adopted by all orienteering nations in 2000, emphasises the desirability to make orienteering events more spectator and media friendly (especially the sprint format events). This might mean running events in terrain close to population centres (and that terrain may already have been extensively used), and often using public areas. In such circumstances, competitors should be well informed of the situation and have ready access to existing maps of the terrain. The principle of fairness is the over-riding guideline.

Controller accreditation.

Hopefully, by the time you read this, those wanting to participate in Controller accreditation courses (Levels 1 & 2) will have done so, or be in the process of doing so. The training of officials is important to maintain standards of the sport, and is also a benchmark required by the state and federal funding bodies. Level 1 qualifies you to control club level events; Level 2, state level events. These programs are administered through OT for Orienteering Australia. Level 3 (national level events) courses are conducted by Orienteering Australia.

Beyond this three-tiered level of Controllers, it is also possible to become and IOF Event Adviser, following participation in workshops, etc., and requiring nomination by the national body to the IOF. An IOF Adviser is required for international events and World Ranking Events.

It is pleasing that Greg Hawthorne and I have recently been accredited as IOF Event Advisers, joining Christine Brown who is one rung higher, being an IOF Senior Event Adviser. There are 14 IOF Event Advisers in Australia – now three from Tasmania. Christine is one of four Senior Event Advisers in Australia. World-wide there are 140 IOF Event Advisors, and Australia and Great Britain head the list, each having 14. It is interesting that we outnumber the Scandinavian countries. In fact, Sweden has only three!

Being an event Controller or Adviser for an event precludes you from entering that event. The more we have, the better the load can be shared!

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (April 2008)

Several orienteers have asked me to re-visit a number of basic issues. Getting back into a new orienteering season is not always easy for any competitor having to overcome the holiday excesses and re-focus on what orienteering is all about. Even getting ready for that walk to the start can be quite a challenge. I wonder how many others at St Helens the other week had to go back to their cars and pick up their compass, or E stick, or maybe their control description holder – maybe their map, or a sweatband. It takes quite a bit to re-focus on competing once again.

So it is for event organisers. While most of us are taking a break, we have course planners and controllers gearing up for those first events of the year: the smaller more casual twilight events, or the more major events like the East Coast 3 Day. And it’s not all that easy to tune back in to the roles of course planning and controlling and there are enough things going on in everyone’s lives as well as volunteering to organise an orienteering event - so there are going to be some slip-ups.

Here are a few points to consider if you are involved in organising an event:

I should point out that while these are issues that have been passed on to me or that I’ve come across myself of late, I’m not criticising any individuals. We all make mistakes – so let’s learn from them.

• Is every control on an identifiable, mapped feature? There might be a lovely new car wreck very conveniently sited on the map – maybe an excellent control for an easy course. But it’s not on the map. Therefore you cannot use it. And no – you cannot draw it on as a map correction and use it. The feature must be on the printed map being used for the event. And anyway, there’s probably a track with a useful bend not far from the car wreck that you can use instead.

• Talking of map corrections. If competitors are to be marking up their own courses, then the convention is that a master of map corrections is available at the assembly area for people to copy onto their maps, and then the course master maps for the courses should also show the relevant corrections in the same way as the master of the corrections.

• Now that takes us to the issue of master maps. Over the last year we have experienced master maps that have been of different scale to the actual map we are copying our course onto; of different orientation on the page; of different colour to the map we are using. The map we are copying our course from needs to be just the same as the map we are copying onto. I think most of the ‘distortions’ we have encountered in master maps have been because the organisers have used the Condes software for course planning, and adjusted the print to fit onto a single page, so changing the scale and/or orientation. And maybe the printer is low on one of the inks, so the colour is a bit up the creek, so to speak.

• Sometimes the odd control isn’t quite where the organisers intended it to be. Look at it this way. The course planner is attempting to entice you, the competitor into making mistakes – like running into the wrong gully, or heading for the wrong feature. So it is understandable that the organisers themselves can make the same mistake. OK, they shouldn’t, and it’s the controller’s ultimate responsibility to ensure every control is correct. At TOS 1 in the recent East Coast 3 Day, such an error occurred. On reflection, the planner and controller realised that when they taped the feature and put out the control and later put out the SI unit, that they had not approached the feature from the direction in which most runners would approach that control. That’s an important lesson for planners and controllers to take on board. A misplaced control is regrettable, but all of us who are involved in organising an event should recognise that none of us is infallible. And for those who haven’t yet been involved in course planning, maybe its time you were, so that you can make, in due course, your own mistakes.

• One final point to reflect on: when planning a course, it is best to avoid having competitors approach it from opposite directions, which often gives the location away. If you are using Condes for your course planning, then it has the useful little feature of identifying controls where the angle of approach exceeds 120 degrees – quite a useful little tool.

Encountering a mistake can be frustrating and annoying. Before you speak to an organiser about your experience and concerns, take time to get your breath back, have a drink, smile at a few people, and then chat with the organisers. Getting angry with them might make you feel good, but what else does it achieve? There are procedures for airing your concerns. They are there to be used if you wish. But do remember – one day (maybe soon), you too are just as likely to make a mistake in your own planning or controlling of an event. "Do unto others ….".

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (May 08)

I have received a few comments and questions since the last Controllers Corner – so I’ll attempt to give my thoughts on some of the issues raised.

Q: At the TOS event, Day 2 at the East Coast 3 Day, where there was a misplaced control, why couldn’t the results have been amended by dropping the split times of the legs immediately before and after the problem control?

A: There has been discussion regarding this possibility at all levels of orienteering, through to IOF events. The recommendation is that dropping the affected splits should NOT be done. Dropping those split times certainly does seem to offer a clear cut solution, but the essential guideline to be followed in orienteering is that of fairness to all competitors, and this solution can still be quite unfair. Consider four runners. Runner A finds the misplaced control quite quickly and easily and possibly hardly realises that it is in the wrong place. A continues on his/her course as if nothing had happened. Runner B has difficulty locating the control, and not wanting to possibly DNF, spends a lot of time searching (probably joined by a bunch of several others). Ultimately B finds the control and continues on her/his course, but possibly a bit disturbed and tired from the search. Runner C arrives at where the control should be, realises that it must have been misplaced, does not bother to search for it, and continues around his/her course. Runner D cannot find the control and decides that she/he will give up and DNF, assuming they have made some sort of error. All four have been differently affected (especially B), and therefore it could be regarded as unfair to try and resolve the situation by deducting the affected splits. It is interesting that a somewhat similar thing happened at the recent Easter event when on Day 1 some elite runners encountered a control already in place for Day 2, near to and with the same number as one of their controls. A complaint was made, and the organiser ruled that all courses affected on the day be cancelled. A protest was lodged, and a Jury upheld the organiser’s ruling, but not without considering the option I’ve discussed above. The courses were cancelled – rather a pity, as this was registered with the IOF as an elite World Ranking Event. Yes! Mistakes can be made at that level too!

Q: Why don’t we use purple pens rather than red ones when we draw up our own maps?

A: A good question! Using purple generally assists red-green colour blind people, and also tends to allow the underlying map features to show through. When we have the courses printed on our maps (using OCAD or Condes), they are printed in a purple that is designed to do this. If we go back a few years when for major events the course planners had to draw on courses by hand on something over 100 maps, there was a time that we endeavoured to track down purple biros rather than red. But I have to say that I haven’t managed to find a purple biro in the stores for some time. With time it is probable that we will more pre-printed courses, and there will be less need for us to be marking up our own maps ( generally about the only time orienteers spend on their knees on a Sunday!). However, in the meantime it might be worth considering acquiring some purple ink biros for marking up – at least for those who have a red-green vision problem. If anyone knows where to get purple pens, please spread the word!

Q: When should control descriptions include the height of the feature?

A: As a basic rule, if the control site is on a point feature, then the height should be given. Point features (e.g. boulders, knolls, root-mounds) are all drawn to standard sizes on maps – not to scale. The IOF guidelines state that "dimensions of a feature should be given where the size of the control feature on the map is symbolic rather than to scale". A brown dot knoll is a point feature, so the height should be given. A contour knoll on the other hand cannot be given a height. In addition to standard point features, rock faces (cliffs) and earth banks should have their height given. Dimensions should also be given for features such as a slab of bare rock or a small clearing. Of course it really comes down to common sense. The planner should be making things as fair as possible. Accurately describing the features including an indication of size improves the fairness factor.

Q: What about special man-made objects?

A: In addition to the set range of man-made objects (fences, buildings, towers, cairns, etc.) some maps make use of the X and O symbols for special (man-made) features – typically car wrecks and light poles. If they are used consistently on a map, then they can be shown in the map legend. But quite often they might be used to refer to several features – e.g. the X might be used for a car-wreck, for a bit of old mining equipment, or for a sign all on the same map. Usually these features are ones that are used predominantly on easy courses for which control descriptions are given in English, rather than in the international symbols – and therefore the planner can describe each feature appropriately. When used on courses for which the international descriptions are used, then the organisers are obliged to provide an explanation of the uses of that symbol in the pre-race information i.e. on the event notice. Basically: if in doubt, tell people what you can, rather than leaving them to guess. Be fair.

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (June 08)

Doing the right thing when things go wrong.

I’ve written before about how we can and should handle things when something goes wrong at an event, and at a recent Controllers’ training workshop, it was suggested that everyone needs to have a really clear understanding of what to do and who to speak to when something goes wrong at an event. So let’s revisit it again and hopefully this will help everyone to understand the ins and outs of how problems at events are dealt with.

First, let’s revisit the Orienteering Tasmania Code of Conduct (to which we as members should all adhere) which was printed in full in a recent O Know (and maybe it’s something we should print in our Membership Directory as a reminder of our obligations as members and competitors).

Let’s note in particular the following statements from that code:

1. Treat all persons with respect and dignity.

8. Use appropriate channels to object, complain, express concern or criticise.

9. Admit our mistakes and accept that mistakes will happen despite the best efforts of all concerned.

Let’s focus on Clause 8: Use appropriate channels to object, complain, express concern or criticise.

Take, as an example, that you had difficulty finding a control on your course and you believe it was not in the correct place. You lost time, energy and patience, so that by the time you finished your course you felt pretty riled. Here is what you should do:

(Note: I’m describing this in the context of a Tasmanian state or club event - major events could involve slightly different initial processes as to where and whom you report your concerns)

1. Check in through the finish (SI download, etc.). At this stage say nothing, but take time to get your breath, calm down, and maybe see if others had the same problem. If they didn’t, then possibly you were wrong. If they did, then there might be a problem to be resolved.

2. Go back to the finish tent, and ask to speak to the event Controller. Resist the temptation to sound off at anyone in the tent – they are volunteers who are helping run the event for you – it is the Controller to whom you need to speak.

3. Speak quietly to the Controller stating that you wish "to make a complaint". (Note: at this stage you are lodging a complaint, not a protest.) Explain and discuss the problem with the Controller, then leave him or her to consider your complaint.

4. The Controller will then look at the problem, generally in consultation with the Course Planner. This may well involve, in this case, the Controller (or someone requested by the Controller) going out to look at the problem control.

5. Once the issues have been considered, the Controller will make a ruling on your complaint. In this case it might be to reject your complaint having determined that the control placement was in fact correct or, if the control was wrongly placed, to uphold your complaint and (probably) cancel the courses that were affected by the incorrect control.

6. The Controller will then inform you of the result of your complaint, and if it affects other competitors, then they must also be informed.

7. That could well be the end of the situation.

8. However, if you (or any other competitor affected by the Controller’s ruling) feels that the ruling on the complaint was wrong or unfair, then you (and anyone else affected) have the right to lodge a protest. The protest is made against the Controller’s ruling on the complaint.

9. A protest should be submitted in writing to the Controller, who will then convene a jury panel of three to consider the protest. The Controller chairs the panel, can discuss the issue with the panel, but does not have a vote on the final outcome.

10. Following the jury’s decision, the result is made known to you and anyone affected by the ruling.

11. The jury’s decision is final.

OK, so that’s a bit long-winded – but as competitors we have a responsibility to be aware of the rules of our sport, and to follow the set (detailed) procedures within those rules. (You can find them here: http://www.orienteering.asn.au/technical/)

But let me summarise this process a bit more succinctly:

1. If you’ve had a problem on your course, don’t sound off to anyone after you finish your course. Get your breath and calm down.

2. Speak to the right person – Controller. Lodge a COMPLAINT with the Controller if you feel that’s appropriate.

3. Leave the Controller to consider your complaint.

4. When the Controller gives you his/her ruling, you either accept it, or you can:

5. Register a PROTEST (in writing) against the Controller’s ruling on your complaint.

6. The Controller convenes a jury to decide the protest.

7. The jury’s decision is final.

As competitors we must respect our officials, as we expect them to respect us. When we take up issues with our officials, it must be done calmly and politely – without anger. (1. Treat all persons with respect and dignity)

And accept the outcomes! It may be that you were in the wrong, or that the Controller or Course Planner have made a mistake. (9. Admit our mistakes and accept that mistakes will happen despite the best efforts of all concerned.)

After all – it is just a sport to be enjoyed.

I’m disappearing overseas for a couple of months. I’m sure that Mary Hawthorne would be happy to accept anything for O Know from anyone in relation to the technical side of our sport.

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (July 08)

Removing split times

In the May Controllers Corner, John discussed the question of amending results by dropping splits where problems occur with controls (missing, misplaced etc). John explained why such an adjustment, although appearing at first glance a logical thing to do, is not necessarily the best solution. A recent amendment to the IOF foot and MTB orienteering rules now prevents such an adjustment (rules 24.15 and 24.9 respectively). The rule 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". The intent of the rule change is to explicitly prevent removal of splits associated with problem controls, whereas previously it was only a recommendation to organisers and protest committees. Orienteering Australia will almost certainly include the new rule in its rules in their next revision.

The colour purple revisited

John also discussed the use of purple pens for marking maps, and noted that this was not such a problem with pre-printed maps as the course overprint colour in Condes and OCAD is purple. Although this is true to a certain extent, purple, like grey, has many shades, and the final result will depend on the printer used, and the combination of colours (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black - CMYK) used to simulate purple. At the recent Tasmanian Sprint Course championships, the maps were printed using a different CMYK purple to that used in the events of the previous two days, and at least one competitor found the course overprint less readable than the overprint used in those events. The reason behind the recommendation to use purple is valid, but the result is sometimes less than ideal, as darker shades of purple can be difficult for non-colourblind competitors to see clearly, especially on maps with a lot of contour detail.

Now that OT has its own printers, we could print maps specifically for colourblind competitors, or more conveniently, get a shade of purple that meets the needs of all competitors.

If you have a colour vision impairment, let me know (greg.hawthorne@bigpond.com), and I will print sample course overprints on OT’s printers to determine which is the best shade of purple.

Greg Hawthorne

Controllers’ Corner (October 2008)

Over the last couple of issues of O Know there have been various reports from some of this year’s overseas orienteering expeditions. Among other things it is fairly evident that the Tasmanians who competed in the World Masters Championships in Portugal and the French 6 Days had a great time (as well as the orienteering!).

Taking part in international events is always exciting – both competition-wise and socially where you find that all orienteers everywhere enjoy their sport - and talking about it over a cooling beer or wine!

It is always interesting to see just how other countries manage their big events – so here are some of my reflections on the two events that Valerie and I competed in.

WMOC, Portugal.

Valerie and I had booked on the internet to stay at a youth hostel some kilometres south of the event centre. The hostel was superb (as were the various other Portuguese hostels we stayed at) – a large restored mansion, rooms with en-suites, great facilities and superb views to the coast some eight kilometres away. When we checked in we were told that the whole hostel had been booked out to orienteers. However, these turned out not to be other competitors, but a handful of officials, and a party of about 30 junior volunteers. We had great fun getting to know some of these – especially the juniors. Altogether there were over 300 officials and volunteers assisting with the event, but I think it was the juniors who really impressed everyone. They were there helping at the start, helping at the finish, at drink stations in the forests and assisting with control placement and collection. For a relatively ‘young’ orienteering country, it was impressive that the Portuguese organisers were able to involve so many young people.

[Thinking back to 1992 when we hosted the Veteran World Cup – now the WMOC – all the key organisers were in fact drawn from the under 35s. There were only two Tasmanian organisers of master’s age who were unable to compete because of their involvement in the organisation.]

The event organisation in Portugal was superb. The variety of terrain (especially the villages used for the sprint events) was great, and the maps excellent. Well – almost. The organisers applied to the IOF Mapping Commission for permission (which was granted) to vary the way in which tracks were mapped in order to try and indicate runability of tracks, given that we were in sand dune terrain and tracks can often be difficult running. As a result, tracks that were deemed difficult to run were mapped as ‘rides’ i.e. long thin broken lines, regardless of the width and visibility of the track on the ground. Many runners found this difficult, especially when finding themselves on a sandy vehicle track which was very definite on the ground, but only shown as a (sometimes hard-to-see) ride on the map. I don’t think this shift from the conventional mapping for tracks really achieved anything. Everyone in sandy terrain has a fair expectation that tracks can be difficult to run, and this change tended to confuse rather than add clarity for competitors. Tracks should be mapped according to how they look, rather than their runability.

French 6 Days.

Again, this was a great event – and really well organised. The French were a little more laid back with their organisation – but it seemed to work. Probably the main criticism would be that the posting of results was rather slow.

There was also an interesting deviation from mapping conventions for this event ( - and I doubt the French sought permission for this from the IOF!). All of our events were run on map scales of 1:7500 and 1:5000. The terrain was exceptionally complex limestone country with rock features varying from a metre to 20 metres in height, scatterings of old (fallen) rock walls, vegetation ranging from open to scattered scrub (hiding many of the rock features) to dark green which compounded the problem of finding ways through the complex rock. In places there was some ‘negative’ terrain (large, deep, depressions – often in green).

The mapping convention is that when large scales are used, the purpose is to ‘open up’ the mapped features to make them more readable. In this case, the French mappers had used the larger scales to put more detail on the maps. As a result, the maps ‘looked’ very much like 1:15,000 or 1:10,000, but were in fact much larger scaled. But then it worked! The maps were very readable (although a bit overwhelming). Maybe one confusing element was that it was difficult to get a real idea of the likely size of some of the rock features – that sort of depended on the thickness of the black line.

[There is one Tasmanian map where the same convention was broken – the Coles Bay Map ‘Beaches, Bush & Boulders’ and used for the 1992 VWC. There was much debate and argument at the time – but we got away with it! The highly detailed map is (was) very readable!] There is the old saying that rules are made to be broken, and in orienteering provided the competitors are not disadvantaged then it can be argued that from time to time rules can be at least ‘bent’. The French seem to be able to this with style! And who is going to complain when two EVOCers come away with first places (no certificate or medallion – just a big box of French wine and delicacies which we did our best to consume before heading home!). Well done Paul and Valerie!

Drink stations

I have to mention drink stations, don’t I! At both events we were at times competing in very hot conditions – well into the 30s. The organisers attempted to ease the situation by having fairly early starts where possible. The first starts for the French event were from 7.30 am each day (which meant a 5.30 am alarm!) Both events had good supplies of drinks both out on courses and at the finish.

There were no problems at all with the Portuguese WMOC. Cups of water were provided at drink stations on the courses and bottled water handed to competitors immediately after the finish.

Water stations at the French event involved a helper handing out cups as you ran up to them, which you then filled. Whether or not the cup was dealt to you the right or wrong way seemed to matter little to the French! And generally we were so in need of the drink that we weren’t really fussed about it.

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (November 2008)

Life seems to be orienteering-hectic in the Brammall household right now with our involvement in the twilights and the primary schools orienteering at a peak. Consequently this article will be fairly brief. The EVOC twilight events have now been run for a number of years using a model of three courses ranging from very easy navigation to easy navigation and three distances of about 1.5, 3 and 5 km.

Keeping the navigation fairly easy for all these distances allows beginners to try themselves on longer courses (which plenty often want to try). For harder navigation we throw in a few difficult controls and offer a 30 or 50 minute score event.

One of the most crucial aspects of risk management at events is keeping tabs on all our competitors. At the end of the day we want to be sure that everyone is accounted for. We use the system of matching the (returned) punch card with the name/s on the registration sheets. But this only works if the requisite information has been entered on both the punch card and the registration sheet. So often names are left off, or only first names given. That is understandable with beginners. An orienteering event is pretty daunting with all the pre-competition procedures: selecting a course, getting a punch card, map, control, descriptions, etc., then copying on the course, and registering a start time. It’s worth thinking back to when each of us started and how daunting the procedure was for us (and maybe still is!). And remember that while we see the personal risk in orienteering is losing our way / making stupid errors / losing time, for many newcomers the first big risk they experience is fronting up to an event (and all the odd people there) and grappling with the procedures I outlined above.

All of us need to assist newcomers through this. And while we like to try and keep it simple, we do need to stress that all the necessary information must go on the punch card and the registration sheet. At the same time it needs to be explained that it is for their safety (as well as our organisational risk management).

Of course we can’t expect beginners to toe the line on this if experienced orienteers are pretty casual about providing the necessary details themselves. Each one of us should ensure that we correctly fill in our punch card and the registration sheet. Don’t assume that everyone knows you, and knows what car you drive. Think of it this way: it is unfair of you to make this assumption and potentially push more responsibility onto the event organisers of the day (should you run into difficulties). You force the organisers (and OT) to take on your risk, and that’s not on. Please provide all the details required of you – and set the example for our newcomers. Give them a hand, and show them what needs to be done.

One last point: another reason for these details being correct is for results processing. There is nothing more frustrating when grappling with CompO and entering the results of the day and finding punch cards with just a first name, no age, no indication of gender – and you have to check the punch marks to work out what course the person ran. So get with it and make it easier for the organisers of the events that you enjoy. Please?

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (December 2008)

With this year’s orienteering season now over, it’s a good time for a little bit of reflection – of a bit of an audit from a controller’s perspective.

Certainly, the quality of events and course setting remains in a much healthier condition than the economy! We continue to prosper, and I believe the quality of course planning and event management are on a steady increase. Of course we can’t go on expecting better and better standards – there are limits to what all of us (as volunteers) can be expected to attain. And we do tend to be rather harsh critics when things do go wrong.

So OK – what are some of the things that have gone wrong this year? And what might we have done about them? I’ve chosen three issues:

1. Misplaced controls (probably the most serious sin that can be committed): Yes, there have been one or two instances of wrong placement (and probably a few more that could be classified as "dubious").

The solution? More rigorous checking by both the course planner and the controller – and especially from the direction that most competitors are likely to approach the control. But we know that that might never be 100% fool-proof. Look at it this way – the course planner is trying to set a course that will test and confuse you with difficult route choices, and likely errors such as with parallel gullies or spurs. So maybe the course planner has confused him/herself (and the controller) as well. But if ever in doubt, check and check again.

2. Controls approached from opposite directions. I recall a few of these through the year, too. The effect of having competitors come to a control from opposite directions is to make the control easier to locate than was intended - and it might help some competitors more than others – so there is a fairness factor comes into this as well.

The solution? This one is really just common sense planning, but then the more courses in an event the more likely it is that this could occur. If the course planner is using the Condes program, then it has the useful tool which identifies these controls using more than 120 degrees in attack angles.

3. Problems with control descriptions. Generally there are few problems here. Planners and Controllers do need to remember that English control descriptions are required for Course 6 (TOS & SL) as well as for Courses 7 & 8. I think it’s quite a good idea to offer Course 6 people both the English and International symbols. Apart from that it can be a bit frustrating when the sizes of point features are not given, or the side where the control is placed is either not there or incorrect.

The solution? Again, the course planner and the controller need to check and re-check. The more complex the detail in the control circle, the more carefully these details must be checked. When are using a program such as Condes for course planning, you can position the circle very precisely. There is now acceptance at the IOF level that the precise placement of the circle with the control feature right in the middle can balance out any vagueness in the control description. For example in the past many of us would have avoided certain control placements because the detail in the circle was too complex and almost impossible to describe (such as in some of the St Helens granite). You can now do this with a vague description such as "middle boulder".

Related to this and the use of Condes – we’ve had some pre-printed maps this year where the control numbers have been confusing or maybe have covered useful detail close to the control. Again, Condes permits you to slide the number to an optimum place where it is clear and unambiguous.

Bonus points:

This year I think we can give ticks to the following:Drink cups being opened at the right end. Remember that is the responsibility of the competitor as well as the event officials.Master maps being kept to the same scale, colour and orientation of the event maps.Competitors making a point of thanking event officials.Course planners taking into account difficult fence crossings.Competitors being more reasoned and tactful when expressing concerns about a problem on their course.

One last point:

When a competitor’s punch card or SI unit is missing a punch or is not registered on the printout, you must remember that the rule here is absolute: DNF. Since the introduction of electronic punching, this rule has become tougher. It doesn’t matter how many holy books you are prepared to swear on or how many witnesses (of the highest reliability) you can summon up to support you. The rule says that you are a DNF.

Of course when things go wrong we are quick to blame the map, or the course, or the course planner, or your compass – when in fact you have made the mistake. The most common mis-punch tends to be a drink stations – so make doubly sure of punching before you take a drink. And don’t take it out on the planner or controller – they must abide by the rules, as must you.

I do have to admit that I can’t quite identify with this problem. In 20 years of orienteering I can claim that I have never DNF’d. I’ve had a couple of close calls and been reinstated. Those were OK under the rules of the day – but I wouldn’t have been as fortunate under today’s rules.

So my main orienteering resolution for 2009? As for all previous years: to complete every course that I set out on.

What’s your 2009 resolution?

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (February 2009)

Welcome to another year of orienteering, and to the various thoughts, musings, discussion and debate of those more technical aspects of our sport. We are in for a big year with our usual program, plus the Easter ’09 Carnival, plus the Aust Champs Carnival followed by World Masters near Sydney (September/October). Plenty of opportunity there for us to enjoy the full spectrum of events from our small club events, to national championships, to the international WMOC! And some have already got the year underway with the Oceania Champs in New Zealand!

I have to admit that at times I really have to scratch my head to think of topics to discuss in this column – so please feel free to send me questions, comments, different view-points, etc.

(John's email address is omitted in this web version - find it in the OT Membership Directory).

With all our New Year resolutions on orienteering still to be put to the test for 2009, I thought it a good time to reflect on the basic tenet that our sport is to be enjoyed (and the competition fair) – so I thought I’d take a bit of a look at what people had to say in the survey that I conducted on behalf of OT towards the end of last year.

The survey was answered by about 50 members, and consisted of questions where you were asked to rank your opinion on a number of issues, and then there was the opportunity to make your own observations about our sport.

Lets look first at some of the specific questions where you were asked to indicate you satisfaction with the program and the events for 2008.

Please note that these results are provided by 50 people – probably about a third of about members – but everyone had their opportunity to answer.

Satisfaction:

No one indicated that they were dissatisfied with the overall program last year – a few rated it as "OK", while most said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied". So anyone who had anything to do with our program (from those who put it together to those who set and controlled various courses and their helpers) should all feel that they achieved well!

The high level of satisfaction also extended to the questions that looked at the different series, etc. There were a couple of areas where some concern was noted by members – Local (Sunday) events, and MTBO events. For both of these there was the suggestion that we needed more events. MTBO of course is still very much in a developmental phase; but our Local events are our bread and butter club events where we try and bring in newcomers to orienteering – so maybe OT needs to give this consideration for next year.

5 or 10 year age classes:

About half those who answered preferred to keep the 5 year age classes for our State League level events, while the rest were split between wanting 10 year classes or having no preference. OT has already acted on this information – we stick with 5 year classes for 2009.

Employing staff:

Members are generally comfortable with the idea that OT take on some paid contract staff – but expressed the views that they were important tasks that could not always be covered by volunteer staff; that having paid officers did not turn volunteers away; and that OT needed to have the money! The role that people were most comfortable with was having someone to look after the promotion and development of orienteering in the state.

That was some of the nitty gritty stuff (and we seem to be mainly happy chappies there). Now let’s look at what people had to say when they were asked to express their own ideas and feelings. (Of course these comments are all pretty subjective, and I have summarised them as well – so we shouldn’t look too deeply into this – but it’s interesting and important.)

What do you like most about orienteering?

It is interesting that from the answers, the most liked aspect of orienteering is in fact the social aspect – slightly ahead of the mental and physical challenge. Being out in the bush and being physically involved are also aspects we enjoy. I think there’s a message for us all here – that while we like our sport and the physical exercise in the bush, the social side is also really important. OK we all hang around and chat after events around the bbq, and we socialise with club members on other occasions – but how about course planners looking to see if they can make some events a bit more fun and ‘social’ – like the team relays we’ve sometimes had – or mass starts so that people finish about the same time with more time to socialise?

What do you like least about orienteering?

The thing that bugs people most about orienteering is the time and cost of travel (especially to state events). But travel is just part of our sport, isn’t it? We can’t just trot down to the local orienteering court, compete and pop home again. We have to go to the terrain – and that becomes a reward in itself. Quite a few people commented on how they enjoy experiencing new places. It certainly does frustrate people if they have to travel long distances for just, say, a short event, or an event which they feel doesn’t come up to standard. So OT needs to take the travel aspect on board in planning each year’s calendar, and we all need to be mindful of the quality of the event to which people have had to travel when we are the planner or controller.

The next least enjoyed aspect of orienteering is the time and associated stress of organising an event (especially as a planner or controller). Again that’s the nature of orienteering again, isn’t it. It is in its very nature a very detailed and ‘specific’ sport – which is why we all love it. And managing events is demanding. OT and our clubs need to look at this from the perspective of the program and our "duty rosters"; while each one of us can do what we can in our own way: only taking on what we have time to take on; making use of training programs for officials; demanding training in the various software packaged we use (OCAD, Condes and CompO).

It is interesting that these concerns far outweigh gripes about poor course setting and misplaced controls on courses. In fact, there were marginally more comments about the people who griped, then the mistakes themselves. Possibly, too, the low level of comment here reflects on the overall high standards of our events.

These comments reflect just the stronger views that emerged in the survey – the OT Board have plenty of information on which to reach a better understanding of how its members feel about our sport, and suggestions as to what might be done better (too diverse to include here).

Back to a final comment for 2009. As I said at the beginning, it’s a big orienteering year, and with Easter we have the opportunity to enjoy a national event in our own terrain. It will be all the more enjoyable for you if you understand and feel comfortable with the rules and regulations of such an event. You will be provided with plenty of information in the competition program – but remember, the onus is on you to abide by the rules of our sport. You can find the rules on the Orienteering Australia website.

Have a great year!

John Brammall

Controllers Corner (March 2009)

The content for this article is contained in a Word file linked to the heading above.