Can the commentary influence the outcome of the race?

[graeme]

I agree with the planner. The mass start race faces several of the issues that the JOK chasing sprint does and we've thought about down the years. Some areas aren't so appropriate for breaking up packs (e.g. Hambledon and Sherwood)

Assuming you want to break packs...

1. Visibility: if you can see someone of anyone close to your standard, and they are navigating you can catch them. As a planner you have to break line-of sight - then its surprising how much the hesitation this causes can break the link.

2. Butterflies: fine for splitting pairs of runners from an interval start, but pointless to break groups of 20 into two groups of 10, especially since the upcoming butterfly is marked on the map (Hagaby-type gaffling, or allowing everyone to miss out a control, works much better).

3. Route Choice: doesn't help early on as the safest route is always "the way everyone else is going". I was surprised we didn't get more route choice though - there's scope for over-or-round or a massive NE-SW leg crossing the whole area.

4. Long legs: could have helped, allowing the leaders to switch off and run might have been
enough to let them get clear. Also, you need to offer the possibility of gaining over a minute (i.e. well out of line-of-sight) to tempt people into taking a different route.


On the other hand, maybe you don't want to break packs. I found it an enjoyable competition to take part in: somewhere midway between trail racing and orienteering. It tested different things from regular orienteering, which benefited some people more than others. If we don't embrace this type of competition, BOF could well find another competitor for our attention, alongside adventure racing, MTBO and mountain marathons.

Now, if only I could sprint and remember to visit all the controls...

Graeme

PS I thought the planning on Saturday was excellent -the area offered lots of scope to make the race a lottery by hiding flags, or tedious with all-legs the same length: they did well to avoid that.

[Godders]

On the other hand, maybe you don't want to break packs. I found it an enjoyable competition to take part in: somewhere midway between trail racing and orienteering. It tested different things from regular orienteering, which benefited some people more than others. If we don't embrace this type of competition, BOF could well find another competitor for our attention, alongside adventure racing, MTBO and mountain marathons.

For me one of the reasons I didn't go to the race was the format. As someone who's stronger technically than physically I'm not interested enough in glorified running races to spend time and money travelling to them.

[Abs]

My vague memory of Clumber Park is that Jo Stevenson was narrowly beaten by Abi Weeds? But the voice calling out to Abi that she had seconds to beat Jo came from a spectator standing near the start of the run-in, not from the commentary?

So was that fair or unfair? Same effect, in that Abi put some welly in on the last sprint, but not influenced by the organisation.

Woah! It's news to me - and I'm a bit saddened - that a W20 race 8 years ago seems to have gone down in the orienteering hall of fame like this.
(Spectator help has never made a difference to me as I always have my skates on up the run-in - I love running fast -
but that's beside the point):

Commentary should be neutral. But surely "fairness" in orienteering doesn't mean silencing supporters? We have so little spectator involvement as it is.

Aren't orienteering races really won in the forest, not up the finish chute?

[Safety]

Saying all this, I have often noticed in the past that the comentary team can influence a race just as spectators around the finish can. when running out in the forest, you can often hear noise from the assembly area which i sometimes use to help me. I think it is just the same as using your ears to listen for a stream etc.

As I did not go to the event I cannot say whether the commentry team where right, but if the runners were aware enough to listen to the commentary team, why not, it may be getting another persons advice, but you can never be totally isolated whist on a course, it is just the way it happens.

I am a big fan of commentary at the finish as it does add to the atmosphere, but for people to listen to the commentary team as they are running, takes some skill, and it has been going on for ages, maybe not as many people have noticed it before but it is there.

[gross2006]

Commentary should be neutral. But surely "fairness" in orienteering doesn't mean silencing supporters? We have so little spectator involvement as it is.

110% correct..................

[Guest]

Don't be saddened, Abs. I meant that we can't insulate competitors from encouragement and why would we want to. So, commentators should call out when a close finish is happening - keeps the spectators involved.

[Guest]

There is much discussion at the present time on how to promote orienteering as an exciting, intellectually challenging and physically demanding sport, which it certainly is. The problem is that the excitement and other components cannot be seen - they are hidden in the forest mostly unless there is a spectator control. The final run in does give some spectator interest providing a commentary team can keep the spectators up to date. At the Hambledon event the commentary team were brilliant, especially at the end of the M18's race. I find it slightly perverse to criticise the commentary team who brought alive an already thrilling event. Let's get real. Most sport is influenced by external factors. Orienteering should not take place in a vacuum. Do we tell the crowd at the Commonwealth games when Paula Radcliffe was lifted by that crowd to win the 10k to shut up as they were giving her an unfair advantage by their shouts of support? Do we ban coaches from communicating with their athletes during a competition?

What happened at the end of the M18's race was a classic sporting moment. If it had been on the world stage ( ie a world champs or the olympic final )and televised it would have made the headlines. A mispunching mistake led to a different but worthy winner to the one who crossed the line first because the winner did something basic - he checked his control code. So instead of finding something to criticise and find fault in let's say what a great event it was. Not all races will be held in that format, but it was one more type of event to add to the different types of racing that are emerging in the sport, a format that is spectator friendly, exciting and competitive for both competitor and spectator.

And for those who say it is not orienteering as everyone goes off in a group and there is the risk of following, at the Trossachs the previous week, some competitors banded together in groups to find the controls.

The winner will always be the one who loses the least time in errors and goes the fastest whatever format - that is the sport plain and simple. Commentary, big screens of the action in the forest, spectator arenas, bring them on - our sport is as great and compelling as the rest, if not better - we just need to be brave enough to show the world what we have got.

[Tatty]

I think what people were unsure about was whether the original first across the line had actually passed the finish and therefore was deemed to have completed his course. If so then he should not have gone back into the forest. People didn't know so were confused. I don't think they were concerned that the two other competitors were "helped".

[jonm]

Commentary can influence the outcome of races. Additonally we use additional technology additional issues are created.

- Does the sight of a control and surrounding area in the terrain help a later runner that sees it on a big screen ?
- Does commentary teams talking about route choice options (from tracking information they have) have an influence.
- Does presenting tracking information to the spectators in an assembly field that might be seen by competitors at a spectator control or during their start affect the competition.

Back in WOC '99 the rules were very clear. However since then IOF has increased their concern for the spectator/TV value of races (see http://www.orienteering.org/publications/leib_con.htm ).
This means that the line is no longer as clear cut as we actively try to promote the "entertainment" of Orienteering events.

[mharky]

That would have been the leg where Mharky lost a minute then?

Graeme

It looked so good on paper as well. Oh Well.


Once I had been going off MY way for about 15s the noticed and said that I was gonig a different wat, which is fine, because I was, but the then made the comment that it was "The preffered route choice" or somthing similar, when people were still coming through the spectator controls, only 1 person came after me, but I dont think they should have made a comment like that.

[Domhnull Mor]

The following is taken from the latest set of rules published by the Swedish Federation

"8.2 Funktionär
8.2.1 Funktionär i tävlingsområdet får inte lämna uppgift till tävlande om placering, löptider eller liknande och inte heller påkalla tävlandes uppmärksamhet på kontrolls läge. Arrangemangets speaker äger dock rätt att ge rimlig information till åskådare. Speaker får inte favorisera enskild tävlande på upploppet."

This basically says that event officialls, etc are not allowed to give information about placings, times etc to competitors. The same applies to the location of controls. However, the speaker can give "reasonable information to spectators but is not permitted to favour any individual competitor on the run-in".

[kedge]

BOF rules state under fairness

"1.5.8 Race officials shall not help, hinder or distract a competitor in any way." which I assume includes the commentary.

At Hambleden at the JK 2 years ago as I hobbled towards the finish on my stick the commentator suggested that I should be disqualified for using artifical aids!

As it was only my 3rd event since I'd had a knee replacement I thought it was uncalled for: I thought I'd done bloody well to get round at all.

[Safety]

Do we ban coaches from communicating with their athletes during a competition?

Commentary, big screens of the action in the forest, spectator arenas, bring them on - our sport is as great and compelling as the rest, if not better - we just need to be brave enough to show the world what we have got.

This happens in Tennis, I remember an episode at Wimebldon where a guys walkman was confiscated dispite it only having 'you'll never walk alone' on it, because the officials were unsure whether it was coaching.

Second point I agree whole heartedly, the surrey 5-O / world cup (particularly the saturday) was how all large orienteering should be done. Plenty of action for spectators, in a large open area where you can see how the race unfolds. Thorougly enjoyed it, and the 4 way sprint for 2nd place in the mens wrapped the day up nicely.
Just one thing, commentry, please don't play the cheesy music like 'Gold' and the chariots of fire soundtrack, cos it's really annoying when it is stuck in your head the whole way round your own course.

[RobL]

When I took my A levels and finals (some years ago now) I was very conscious of the problem of not being able to get songs that I had heard recently out of my head. I managed to find some research that showed the problem was related to stress.

So, in subsequent years I have avoided music in the hours leading up to the exam. The problem is exascerbated though if a tune is left half-finished. The nightmare scenario would almost certainly have been leaving the arena at Mytchett during the first chorus of 'Gold'!

Since music at the start of a major competition can be such a massive mental distraction, perhaps pop tunes are not anywhere near as positive an addition as pure commentary.