British Sprints

[NeilC]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9706

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11842

[DJM]

My query would be does the current sprint/middle/long champs (is there a separate BEOC any more) align to the course lengths, event format, technical dfficulty, course planning, start procedure, finish procedure, quarantine environment, doping control etc etc that are found at world cups, world Univ, JWOC, other wre and World Champs. If they do not then how do they benefit/get British elites "world" ready?

Taking just the Sprint element of Phil's query, the format of the British Sprints (i.e. a Qualification race plus a Final) is based firmly on that used at WOC ("The programme shall include a qualification and a final race for the Sprint distance competition"), at many World Cup events and at some WREs.

It is not used at JWOC where "The programme shall include a single-race Sprint competition". However the JWOC Middle competition does have a Qualification plus Final format so our juniors will get some transferable experience from the British Sprints.

Also, it isn't just our British elites who become "world ready" as a result of the British Sprints format, it's also anyone who enters WMOC as the Sprint race there also has Qualification heats and A/B/C/etc Finals.

[DJM]

Why not two races with times added together?

You might then just as well run the two races together as one longer race for all the difference it would make to the results. Then it wouldn't be the British Sprint Championships but would be more like the British Middle-Distance-on-an-ISSOM-map Championships instead.

After all, the athlete who wins the Olympic 100m Sprint title is, quite properly, the one who posts the best time in the 100m Final and not the one whose combined Heats times is the best. And so it should be with the British Sprints as a Sprint race is part-defined as having a 12 - 15 minute winning time and not a 24 - 30 minute one.

As Controller of last year's British Sprints, I have first hand experience of the extra hassle that having our current format involves. But I differ from the views of some others in that I like the build up in interest that the qualification and finals model involves and I think the hassle is worth it.

One simplification we should make however is to remove the pretence that heats are in some way secret. They weren't on Saturday morning as everyone knew which heat they (and those around them) were in at the -6 box, thereby nullifying the secrecy aim ...

[Scott]

One simplification we should make however is to remove the pretence that heats are in some way secret.

Although it is, of course, perfectly possible to keep the heats secret if the organisers want to - SROC managed it at Chorley in 2010, although admittedly they only had three parallel sets of courses to deal with. Whether it's worth the extra hassle is a separate question.

Personally I still pine for the simplicity of the old British Elite Sprints format.

[graeme]

Taking just the Sprint element of Phil's query, the format of the British Sprints (i.e. a Qualification race plus a Final) is based firmly on that used at WOC ...

...several years ago but not any more.
When the format came in, WOC featured heats and finals on the same day. The argument then was around recovering after a qualifier. Recovery is an issue, at WOC 2015 the men's sprint team opted out of the sprint relay to get time to recover. Now that WOC heats and finals are separated by two days, even the "based on WOC" argument is obsolete.

[NeilC]

The hour delay on Saturday made the event an almost ideal preparation for Sweden

http://www.woc2016.se/en/programme

The flypast was even arranged to mimic the WOC opening ceremony.

[Jon X]

Now that WOC heats and finals are separated by two days, even the "based on WOC" argument is obsolete.

Talking of obsolete arguments, this year the WOC sprint qualifier and final are on the same day...

[rocky]

You have to ask if the format is the best one?

What about Individual Sprint in the morning and Mixed Sprint Relay in the afternoon?

[awk]

I'm with DJM on this one - and am one of those that NeilC identified as preferring the qualifying format.

Having said that, I do wish a way could have been found to retain the old-style British Sprints format in some way or other, possibly the single most enjoyable domestic championship I've run in: it never bothered me that it was unlikely that I would ever qualify higher than the C final (at the time, probably lower now), as it gave both a chance to run against some of the best (in the heats), whilst competing against those of my standard in the final. I always wondered why we didn't have Age Class one weekend, and Elite another. Or even on the same weekend? (But not the same day!)

[graeme]

Talking of obsolete arguments, this year the WOC sprint qualifier and final are on the same day...

but its a bit late to change last week's format: 2017 quali and final are on different days.

What about Individual Sprint in the morning and Mixed Sprint Relay in the afternoon?

Nice.
How many teams is it sensible to have per mass start in a sprint relay?

[EddieH]

Well I am really disappointed with myself. I was not particularly looking forward to it as I expected a simplistic running event. The heats did not disabuse my opinion and i had totally the wrong attitude to the finals.

I thought they were excellent and worth the hassle the organisers had in sticking to their venue choice.

I also congratulate them on making a real effort to note and disqualify people transgressing forbidden routes. I did NOT however think that the program decision to ban them from a final start was right as it was tantamount to saying that they cheated whilst quite clearly a lot of transgressions are errors, lack of care, or incompetence. Therefore they should be treated like any other dq. I understand that this is what did happen in the event.

I thought the proposed final start times were tight. Unfortunately for the organisers their ambition came back to bite them as people are so critical. Maybe they should have proposed a 3 hour time between races to ensure that noone could complain that they failed

As planner of next year's Scottish relay champs which is a much smaller affair, qualifying heats for age class finals is pretty farcical and we are intending 2 races (as most people like a bit more) that somany are proposing here.

But personally I like the qualification system and doubt that there would be half the complaints had the skies not emptied on the delayed final.

[Snail]

I also congratulate them on making a real effort to note and disqualify people transgressing forbidden routes. I did NOT however think that the program decision to ban them from a final start was right as it was tantamount to saying that they cheated whilst quite clearly a lot of transgressions are errors, lack of care, or incompetence. Therefore they should be treated like any other dq. I understand that this is what did happen in the event.

I can understand the stance taken in the programme. If crossing out-of-bounds areas in a heat is caused by lack of care or incompetence then the individual is just as likely to make a similar mistake in the final - and my understanding is that OOB areas were an even more sensitive issue for the finals than they were for the heats.

[EddieH]

The reason I applaud dqing people is to get it in people's heads that it matters. (Personally it is incomprehensible to me how anyone feels thry should be counted if they fail to complete the set course.)

If this is done consistently the culture will change. However by being clearly labelled as a cheat, it might have the opposite effect.

There is no shame in being dqd for a wrong control, there should be no more shame for a genuine mistake.

Whilst it is often absolutely clear that people have not complied with forbidden routes, and when so, in my view right to dq them, it is quite a different matter to say that they intentionally cheated.

[andy]

Any RouteGadget for the sprints yet? I can't see anything...

[Snail]

I don't think there is a suggestion that those DSQd in the heats intentionally cheated - and no reason why the organisers' original stance that they would not be permitted to start in the final should be taken as implying that.

It is surely valid for the organisers, who best understand the views of the landowner, to consider how to minimise the likelihood of anyone going OOB in the final? If someone either doesn't understand the OOB rules, or is running too fast /without sufficient care to read the map properly, then I think the organisers could legitimately consider that a further breach was at least a possibility, and perhaps even likely.

But it could perhaps have been foreseen that the stance might give rise to a number of complaints / protests / juries after the heat results, requiring resolution (and thus delay) before the start list for the finals could be produced.