Start Time Allocations

[Tatty]

Incidently, the November Classic, which is what was being referred to was NOT a National standard event. It was just a Regional event. We were not informed it was a selection race for anyone, and to have complaints with just a few days to go meant that the Entries people did not have the time to do anything at that late stage. they too go out to work. This would have all been avoided IF the Selectors had had the decency to ask/inform us at an early stage of the event. Then the entries people would have been quite happy and able to avoid the problems that occured. Hopefully something will be done about this. We were a bit miffed at getting flack about this when we had no idea that seeding might be needed!!

[Guest]

What was the November Classic a selection race for?

[graeme]

Absolute crap... for a serious 'National Stadard Competition' you take the start time you are allocated & aaceppt it.. no argumentts....

Disagree. Any serious 'National Standard Competition' should be held under the rules known to competitors when they enter. I have no problem with seeding, or basing day 2 on the results of day 1, but if its going to happen I expect to know in advance.

Imagine is Vroni S said at WOC.... oh... Janne's got the same start time... we can't look after the kids:)

Irrelevant. National event guidelines specify that you can ask for split starts. WOC guidelines specify that you can't.

And as for being forced to take a split start when you've been told you can't have one and made other complicated plans...

Graeme (seeded starter at Kyloe - any childcare offers considered) [/b]

[FatBoy]

Oh yes it is!!! - i.e. both the software and the fact that organising officials do say this!

So you agree with me! i.e. software can do crap but it's those who let it whithout saying anything about it that are at fault. As I said a programmer can be at best as good as the rules they're given, and looking at Appendix L that NeilC put up this is very vague.

You can set the allocation gap in Mike Napiers software so you can have 'x' minute gaps on the same course or 'x' minute gaps for runners marked as seeds etc.

You on a retainer? Firstly as I understand it Mike's ROAST start time allocation thing will only work when using his software for download (commercially cute perhaps). And secondly I don't believe his software works for Emit. I know I talk about it alot but what we need is a piece of software that takes an IOF XML EntryList and turns it into an IOF XML StartList using the best attempt at what Appendix L sets out (perhaps with guidance from this forum). This is what these data standards were setup for - to allow two or more independent systems to talk to each other!

[HOCOLITE]

No I'm not but I did use the software at the JK and it does do those things. I don't see how it can only work if using his software on download. Maybe it's only available for use as part of the deal or for payment. I believe he is writing similar for use with emit, but that is only a rumour I heard.

[HOCOLITE]

To Gandralph
The British got the seeding all to pot on all the junior courses I wonder if no one let them know about junior seedings. The Welsh Champs would not have had to apply any seedings so its upto your parents on their entry to request something like please start 4 mins from any competitor in his class if poss.

[gross2006]

To Gandralph
. The Welsh Champs would not have had to apply any seedings so its upto your parents on their entry to request something like please start 4 mins from any competitor in his class if poss.

I don't believe it....... that can't be serious:) Lets all put on entry fors a request to start 4 mins apart from others.... that'll soon get a decent start list.

[FatBoy]

I don't see how it can only work if using his software on download.

Maybe I'm wrong but assuming it's standalone for a second the how does it get data for start times in and out of (for example) OE2003? I suspect it's tied entirely to his system which in fairness is the simplest way of doing it.

Just for the record I'm not having a go at Mike at all - I'm just pointing out that the answer to all woes to do with start allocations are not solved by using his software.

I've had a go at the JK start time allocation from this year before (i.e. last/first, first/last) but I don't think it's Mike's fault - there just isn't a standard rule for it (outside elite classes).

[mharky]

its strange that in British Domestic races our seeded (best) runners are put as far a part as possible, where what you normally get is the best runners all going off at the end, 2/3/4 mins apart...

[Guest]

>>> its strange that in British Domestic races our >>> seeded (best) runners are put as far a part as >>> possible, where what you normally get is the >>> best runners all going off at the end, 2/3/4 >>> mins apart...

As far as I am aware, at all the UK Cup races the best runners go of at the end.

[HOCOLITE]

For the JK the start times for elite seeds is done separately by someone on the elite steering group and submitted to the entries team. I guess it's based on UK cup and FCC cup up to that time but I don't know.

[gross2006]

JK seeding was done by Dave Harrison based on a paper he wrote a few years ago. It works as well as it can for the JK Day 1 given the various constraints of the 20's running the same course, FFC, UK Cup, WRE etc etc all rolled into one.

[graeme]

A few years ago seeding was done rigidly on current/previous years UK cup points, which meant that for a series of races you were always chasing the same person (Ifor Powell in my case) which got a bit dull. Also some people (Kim and Lorna) always ran together.

BOC seeding this year was done by seeded blocks of 20, slowest block first, but with start times randomised within those blocks. As penultimate starter, I thought I'd been given a split start, but it turned out I was ranked 20th and got a lucky draw. Maybe JK is the same?
Either way, its a pretty good system.

Meanwhile, I think somewhere there is a rule that you can always take an early start if you need one for split starts, helping, or somesuch.

Graeme

[Dave H]

BOC seeding this year was done by seeded blocks of 20, slowest block first, but with start times randomised within those blocks. As penultimate starter, I thought I'd been given a split start, but it turned out I was ranked 20th and got a lucky draw. Maybe JK is the same?
Either way, its a pretty good system.

Meanwhile, I think somewhere there is a rule that you can always take an early start if you need one for split starts, helping, or somesuch.

Graeme

The system as Graeme has described it is used for both the JK and BOC and he is also correct that athletes can request to start earlier if required.

This system has been applied to the JK since 1998 and to BOC from a year or so later. For BOC it is always based on the most up to date UK Cup positions possible (allowing for organisation deadlines etc.).

For the JK the balance between using the previous years final UK Cup positions and the current years positions tends to change from year to year depending on the race calendar i.e how many UK Cup races have happened before the start times need to be determined, but in practice the emphasis tends to be on the previous years final positions.

Also, as Gross indicated, at the JK the leading 20s are inserted as a block in the middle of the 21s to help reflect where they would start if they entered 21 (i.e for UK Cup points) whilst still trying to maintain the integrity of the M/W20 classes.

Hope that answers most peoples questions.

[awk]

So you agree with me! i.e. software can do crap but it's those who let it whithout saying anything about it that are at fault. As I said a programmer can be at best as good as the rules they're given, and looking at Appendix L that NeilC put up this is very vague.

I suppose in a way I do - but the point I was trying to make is that organisers (or at least the people dealing with start times) do let the software dictate. I don't know whether that is because it is seen as the 'fairest' way, but it was rather held up as the main reason to me.

I also believe the software was programmed wrongly. Runners on the same course were starting within one minute of each other - as far as I can see this is against the rules.

What was curious about this particular situation was that I was told if I wanted to change blocks because of a problem with travel etc., I could. Apparently this was fair. My request to change start times because it was leading to an unfair competition was apparently not.

I do take on board what you say Tatty, and I have absolutely no complaint about the November Classic (as I said at the time and since, I really enjoyed it!), but taking the selection race issue out of the equation, I do feel that on this one very specific point the controller and start list organisers did get both the letter and the spirit of fairness wrong, and I would like for us all to learn from it (I have to say I didn't find out about rule 8.1.1 until later - at the time I was querying on a general point of what I felt was fairness). Whilst it didn't affect either of us in the end, it certainly seems to have done so elsewhere.

It may have "only" been a regional event, but unfortunately perhaps for you the organiser, the NC still carries a level of prestige beyond its regional status!