I don't envy anyone trying to come up with a resolution for that situation...
(surprising that IOF hadn't pre-identified the jury's members though?)
I wish the iof would hurry up and post the decision. I know it still won't please everyone but the lack of information is contributing to a lot of extra drama here.
A few potential jurors had major conflicts of interest, others couldn't be find and there seemed to be a strong preference to not have orienteering politicians make the decision.
Out of interest, did anyone reference Tim Robertson's disqualification in the WOC long in Estonia where he apparently went through the corner of an area marked OOB on the map but which was not clearly defined on the ground, right towards the end of the race?
No. We didn't consider any other races as precedents and we wanted to make it clear that this decision did not constitute a precedent in relation to crossing oob.
Fair enough - they were lucky to have you as someone who had actually experienced the map/terrain/course at race pace.
At EA/controller workshops we always end up using previous precedents as jury examples though...
I think the process as a whole will be a useful example to discuss but it's important not to pick and choose specific things from it to use as a precedent in a different situation.