Results and Rankings.

[NeilC]

Trying to reverse the decision not to award ranking points for a closed event when there is no rule to say that such events should be excluded.

[graeme]

Are you trying to change the rule (Appendix K), or change the implementation of the rules?

Could you say which rule in Appendix K prohibits closed events, Martin?
All I can see is...
1.2.1 All Events at Levels A, B and C are required to contribute subject to the conditions in 1.2.2.
1.2.2 Night events, Relay, Score, Chasing Start and other mass start events may give anomalous results and are excluded from the Rankings scheme.
Which appears to say that including BUCS (level C) is required.

There are already dozens of (age-based) courses included which are closed to most BOF members, whereas BUCS is open to guest runners.

[EddieH]

Why on earth would it matter if it were absolutely closed anyway? The ranking system works on relative performance and should matter not a jot who is running so long as there are a sufficient number of ranked runners on the course.

[madmike]

whereas BUCS is open to guest runners.

Which is why I think ranking points should be given for it

[Spookster]

Are you trying to change the rule (Appendix K), or change the implementation of the rules?

Could you say which rule in Appendix K prohibits closed events, Martin?
All I can see is...
1.2.1 All Events at Levels A, B and C are required to contribute subject to the conditions in 1.2.2.
1.2.2 Night events, Relay, Score, Chasing Start and other mass start events may give anomalous results and are excluded from the Rankings scheme.
Which appears to say that including BUCS (level C) is required.

There are already dozens of (age-based) courses included which are closed to most BOF members, whereas BUCS is open to guest runners.

We agree, I can't see anything in Appendix K that precludes closed events being used. So my question was meant as "should we change the rules to match what is being implemented, or change what is being implemented to match Appendix K". At the moment it appears that we're not quite doing what Appendix K says.

[AndyC]

It would be possible for someone to artifically improve their ranking by organising a closed event with 9 other ranked "competitors" persuading them to run slowly while running quickly themselves.
Increases the ranking of the "fast" runner but as the others can drop bad runs it doesn't affect their ranking (assuming they have 6).
Is the interpretation an attempt to prevent such sharp practice?

[Scott]

I'm not convinced that's a particularly good reason to exclude closed events, since such an individual (and I'm not sure anybody cares about the rankings list *that* much ) would need the collusion of their association fixtures secretary to get their private rankings-boosting event registered at Level C in the first place...

[AndyC]

I offer it as a possible reason why -Not a justification. Anyway if it happened someone would soon arrange the deletion of the event under some pretext.

[DeerTick]

Why on earth would it matter if it were absolutely closed anyway? The ranking system works on relative performance and should matter not a jot who is running so long as there are a sufficient number of ranked runners on the course.

Spot on, Eddie.

[Mrs H]

It would be possible for someone to artifically improve their ranking by organising a closed event with 9 other ranked "competitors" persuading them to run slowly while running quickly themselves.

ha ha ha - it would be easier to get someone to hack into the computer

[mappingmum]

whereas BUCS is open to guest runners.

I see. So it's a closed event, open to guests. Does that not mean it's an open event?

[LostAgain]

whereas BUCS is open to guest runners.

I see. So it's a closed event, open to guests. Does that not mean it's an open event?

No, if it were an Open Event then you and I could enter. We cannot. We could only attend if invited unless we were students.

[EddieH]

I once ran in BUSF (as it was then called as a guest because it was a World Students Champs selection race). I was a college rather than Univ student at the time and therefore inelligible for B[b]U[/b]SF.

I was required to run 2 hours before the first start so that I could have no effect on the result. (I did at least get selected in the end.)

Th erelay was even odder. I ran first leg in a scratch team with Geoff Peck and an solo university runner. I had my own start 20 minutes after the mass start.

[martin]

Its a year since Easter, and most of us have leapt up the rankings today.
Will we all drop back this Easter?

[rocky]

This weeks biggest faller... hello Matt Speake, down 2463 to 2470th place!

Since heats and final count separately on Saturday he should well bounce back next week...