S6D Badge Scheme

[HarryO]

We are confused by the Scottish 6 Day Badge Scheme. What is 'N'? We are told that N will be published for each Class during the week but we can't find it. The webpage says that "N is the total number of active competitors in the class". Today's news-sheet talked about 'points' but the Badge TIme results are times.

The scheme looks similar to the BOF scheme where N is how many scores used to produce an average (3 in the BOF scheme I think).

We follow the rest of the scheme, i.e. the multiples. Just wanted to know how many of the top competitors are used as the benchmark.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

PS Having a great time here in Oban - great orienteering!

[andy]

N is the max competitors for a single day add 5% rounded up to the nearest 5 (honest!)

Your score is your lowest 4 positions added together.

So if your class has N of 100 you need 0.8 * 100 = 80 to get a gold badge, i.e. 4 20th places or better.

Paul is probably beat placed to confirm but this is my understanding

[HarryO]

Okay. So the Badge Times listed for each day are the normal BOF badge times - and nothing to do with the S6D badge.

[Paul Frost]

N is the number of people actively competing in the class.

I have put up a web page on the 6Days website with the details.

Badges (Gold, Silver and Bronze) are available for £3 from the Information Point in the assembly field.

[pigweed]

To be honest I have to say the scoring system isn't particularly good in identifying the people who've put in reasonable performances over the full five days compared with people who may have done only a couple of really good runs and miss-punched or retired from the rest of the week. This isn't sour grapes as I have not been affected by this, but it's just an observation. I think it's worth discussing this to try and develop a fairer scoring system.

Enjoyed the week though, thanks.

[andypat]

To be honest I have to say the scoring system isn't particularly good in identifying the people who've put in reasonable performances over the full five days compared with people who may have done only a couple of really good runs and miss-punched or retired from the rest of the week. This isn't sour grapes as I have not been affected by this, but it's just an observation. I think it's worth discussing this to try and develop a fairer scoring system.

Enjoyed the week though, thanks.

Full five days?! Which one did I dream?

I would counter that the system is pretty good at weeding out those of us whose performances over all 6 days were undeserving!

[SIman]

The scoring system was not designed to

"identify the people who've put in reasonable performances over the full five(sic) days compared with people who may have done only a couple of really good runs and miss-punched or retired from the rest of the week."

The fact that only four days count has been discussed on Nopesport several times and the reasons behind the policy are well known, if not universally agreed.
The Six Day badge scheme is also well established and it has always been possible to gain an award with three good runs, and three retirals, mispunches or no runs.
No scoring system is perfect, but this one is simple and was publicised in advance.

[pigweed]

I'm not arguing against the fact that four days out of six count, this is okay. It's just that the way the points are awarded, with the non-scorers on a day getting a penalty based upon the class size and a factor doesn't work properly. The penalty figure for a non-run should be higher, or you should do the scoring the other way around with the winner on a course getting 500 points, next one down 499 etc. with non-runners getting zero.

The current arrangement can skew the results.

[andy]

The current arrangement can skew the results.

It did 2 years ago because the formula for calculating the points for a no run or mp was flawed, but it was fixed this year. Can you give examples of where it has skewed results please?

[King Penguin]

Can you give examples of where it has skewed results please?

After the first 4 days, all of which she completed, my wife was below someone in the overall rankings who had 1 5th place and no result on the other 3 days. The other lady is definitely the better orienteer, as measured by a one-off championship-type event, but I thought multidays were about performance over the week, not on a single day.
The issue won't affect the top in the class, but the sport is supposed to be for all not just the top few.
I would suggest the factor for no run / no result / dsq / dnf should be number in class + 100%, not +5%. That way, anyone with only 2 results is guaranteed to be listed below anyone with 4 results, even if the 4 are all last.

[pigweed]

King Penguin has already given an example of what I was trying to say, but I'll give another below.

If you have a class of, say 50, this means the score for a non-run, miss-punch or retiral is 55 (5% of 50 = 2.5 but rounded up to nearest 5).

Competitor A's results during the week are:

30, 32, 33, 40, 35, 36.
This would put their score at 130.

Competitor B scores the following:

9, miss-punch, miss-punch, miss-punch, retires, 10

Their points are 19 + 110 = 129.

So who's the better orienteer? Competitor A has had a consistent performance over the entire week and completed every course, not necessarily fast, but accurately. Competitor B however is a faster runner so has scored highly on two days but can't navigate very well so has flunked the rest of the week and given up on one day, but still comes higher in the results.

The whole point of an orienteering race is that it is a race where both navigational ability and fitness are tested but the navigational ability contributes more highly to the overall result. I quote BOF rule 1.1.4:

1.1.4 In orienteering both the speed and navigational skill of the competitor shall be tested, but in such a way that the test of map reading and navigational skills should be decisive.

The scoring system employed here can favour fitness over navigational ability over the course of a multi-day event, which I think goes against the spirit of BOF rule 1.1.4

This is just my opinion. I still enjoyed the week though.

[greywolf]

Hmm, not sure your analysis stands up. I was one of several competitors in my class who only completed 3 days, and whilst i'm not the greatest navigator in the world my Day 4 mp was due to my general "I'm knackered and can't be arsed to run that far!" attitude following 6+hours in the rain at the start with a dodgy knee (which then ruled me out of Days 5 & 6). A bit higher up the results Charlie Adams (37th) & Jon Musgrave (39th) also only completed 3 days - I'm not sure why but I wouldn't presume to suggest that it reflects any lack of navigational ability
You can reasonably debate whether the overall results should be scored in a way that ensures that everyone who finishes 4 days, however slowly, finishes above someone who only finishes 3 days, even if they win all 3; but I find it hard to believe that anyone with 4 plus events who finished 40th or below on M45L thinks that they are a "better orienteer" than Charlie or Jon.

And IMHO (and bitter experience) "a faster runner.. {who}.. can't navigate very well" isn't going to feature highly in any events

[LostAgain]

You can reasonably debate whether the overall results should be scored in a way that ensures that everyone who finishes 4 days, however slowly, finishes above someone who only finishes 3 days, even if they win all 3; but I find it hard to believe that anyone with 4 plus events who finished 40th or below on M45L thinks that they are a "better orienteer" than Charlie or Jon.

I'm not sure what the gripe is about. Once you get to where I am on the list I'm just looking to beat my usual peer group and hopefully take the odd scalp with an exceptional run, even if aided by a late start .

Like you, because top atheletes like Charlie could not last 4 days without breaking down does not give me any satisfaction to be higher on the list. To finish above Jon because he Oragnised/helped gives no satisfaction either.

Not sure about the purpose of giving points for a MP, DNS or retired is. I assume its to aid the results compilation process.