World Cup Finals

[DJM]

The World Cup Finals are currently being staged in the Czech Republic and we are today half way through the programme … yet there's been a deafening silence about this both on nopesport and the BOF website

Am I the only one in Britain to have watched both days' TV broadcasts?

[Freefall]

Golf and work but looked at results

[Arnold]

You may indeed be the only one.

Reasons?
Races have no real point
Terrain fairly boring (at least first two days)
British results somewhat underwhelming

[DJM]

It's a pity that no one else seems to have watched the races as the knock out Sprint in particular had some dramatically outstanding features. It provided the first time that the experiment of "runners' choice" was tested at a major IOF event and the reaction of those who watched it will be vitally important in deciding whether or not to proceed with the experiment.

In a nutshell, each of the six (mass) starters were presented with a section of the map which had three course variations, A, B and C. The rest of the course was standard and not revealed beforehand and the runners had 20 seconds in which to decide which variation they would run. Once they'd made up their minds they had to run the variation they'd selected.

One other feature was that opaque sheets between each runner meant that they couldn't see what the other runners were selecting …

… what then followed was anything but boring. But did it make for good TV? Read the WorldofO analysis to find out!

[NeilC]

In some previous runners' choice events there were some variants that were clearly quicker than others and so the result was heavily influenced by how efficiently the competitors could spot that. That can't be the way forward.

From what I saw on Thursday the variants were not that significant and ended up providing a race completely different to Euromeeting where tactics were quite different for a race with no variants. From what I could gather the runners didn't get a lot of information on which to base their choice so whether it really was any different to randomly allocating the courses is worth questioning.

Purists may argue that having different courses is inherently unfair, but it's easier to ensure compatibility in a sprint race than in a forest one. No doubt that the format will evolve a bit more by 2020 WOC, but things seem to be moving in the right direction.

Work prevented me watching the sprint relay but given the weather yesterday I ended up watching most of the middle TV coverage. The coverage was really good and the terrain great fun. Just a shame that the GPS units lost coverage so often, many runners were making mistakes but we often didn't get to see where.

[Scott]

I watched the GPS replay of the knockout sprint final - the phi loops made it utterly incomprehensible.

Jan Kocbach has a good review of the different knockout formats over at WoO. I'd certainly like to see a trial of the runners' choice variant he proposes in this comment.

[DJM]

Scott - if you think the butterfly loops in the Final were utterly incomprehensible for the viewer, then have a look at any one of the six Semi Finals where "runners' choice" was used ...

PS I agree about the Final!

[Adrian]

I watched some of the Czech TV coverage, including most of today's sprint, which was very good. (I haven't worked out why Alice was DQd, and I feel sorry for Cat, who's somehow not quite her head back in the right place, but who I'm sure will do so soon enough.) It's often said that time trials don't make good TV, but the production teams are now able to present them very well, and they're interesting and exciting.

IOC is putting far too much effort into finding a mass-start event that will wow TV audiences - the new KO event is a case in point. It's not that easy to follow, and the level of the actual orienteering is reduced to a kiddies' race really.

As I pointed out to Jan, if the IOC isn't going to reduce the sport to the status of a farce it has to maintain some reasonable standard of actual orienteering in the races. That's why I say that the only real options for mass-start individual races are either pursuit (chasing start) and farsta (one-person relay).

[Freefall]

By IOC I assume you mean IOF? I watched the Knock-Out Sprint afterwards and have to say it was baffling, especially when the competitors looped back round the area they had already run in. I guess by 2022 the format will have been settled but we do have discussions with the IOF Senior Event Advisor coming up quite soon and it would be good to understand different formats. If the intention is to draw in a TV audience the current formats fail (self choice or phi-loop), with the exception of the easily understandable first to sprint over the line wins option (no forking). I have heard of Farsta but am a bit unclear as what this actually looks like. The flying_pig/farsta link I uncovered on a web search did not work. As to other options - fastest first or last on a chasing start?

[afterthought]

I think there has been quite a bit of testing of different "3rd sprint formats" from the organisers and athlete point of view, maybe not from the spectators (or potential spectators). So the sprinters in the squad will all likely have experience and a good understanding. I have also seen various reports but have not kept track - one I can find now, which came after MOC Camp earlier this year
https://orienteering.org/3rd-sprint-format-testing/

I prefer the formats used in last week's Czech World Cup to the one used at Euromeeting two weeks ago, because of requiring orienteering. In Euromeeting it was too much tactical running. But the phi-loops/butterfly in the final in Czech could not be followed.

[Bash]

I don't see what's so confusing about it at all, and in my mind any uncertainty about who's leading during a runner's choice/loop section only adds to the excitement. It's not like gaffling with loops is a new thing - when they're used during relay races no one really knows which team is leading until the exit either, but there's never been any complaints there.

As long as GPS tags/TV production properly highlight which runner's choice section the runner has picked/which loop the runner has first I think the format is fine, especially since the entire course isn't taken up by these sections. We watched the Semis/Finals on the TV back at the flat we were staying in this last weekend and I haven't witnessed so much cheering/screaming at the TV while watching orienteering before, save for maybe WOC Relay this year. We didn't even have any GB runners qualifying that far on Thursday!

And yes there are arguments about running one loop first being physically advantageous compared to another, or about the luck involved with random gaffle allocation/the little time given during runner's choice pre-start, but when is orienteering, moreover sprint orienteering ever actually fair? Many of you will have watched the WOC Sprint this year where competitors had to just about swim round their races with the amount of tourists about, when only some runners were warned of the last control, when the indoor section came up and many runners found themselves in a kitchen... Yesterday's Sprint also highlighted the huge problem with stairs, or anything 3D for that matter, on routechoices and how they're mapped at 2D. And how about traffic, terrain runnability, tracking, control punching while racing in groups, the effect of commentary/crowd support/lack of, start lists/world ranking, the list goes on...

I think the new format has a lot of potential, both for spectators and competitors. Both sides clearly need time to adjust, time to learn the tactics (of which there are many) and time to fully appreciate the coverage, but in time this could do the sport a world of good, maybe even literally.

[Adrian]

Here's the farsta info: https://web.archive.org/web/20130308052 ... ample.html

I organised a farsta mass-start race at Aston Hall a few years ago. It would work well for TV because there are several common controls.

[andypat]

I don't see what's so confusing about it at all, and in my mind any uncertainty about who's leading during a runner's choice/loop section only adds to the excitement. It's not like gaffling with loops is a new thing - when they're used during relay races no one really knows which team is leading until the exit either, but there's never been any complaints there.

I think its not so much of an issue for experienced orienteers watching but if you need to understand a relatively complex situation to be able to understand whats happening then its no good for a wider audience.

With respect to Bash, you've been brought up in an orienteering family. I remember in my twenties on one of my early unsuccessful attempts to get back into the sport, entering a race over in Edinburgh but deciding at the last minute not to go when I read that there were butterfly loops in the final details and I didn't know what that was.

[Bash]

I don't see what's so confusing about it at all, and in my mind any uncertainty about who's leading during a runner's choice/loop section only adds to the excitement. It's not like gaffling with loops is a new thing - when they're used during relay races no one really knows which team is leading until the exit either, but there's never been any complaints there.

I think its not so much of an issue for experienced orienteers watching but if you need to understand a relatively complex situation to be able to understand whats happening then its no good for a wider audience.

That's a fair point and I certainly sympathise with the newcomers to the sport, although I was more aiming at experienced orienteers who couldn't understand the concept. I don't see how it's any less confusing than relay gaffling, so I assume you're coming from the IOF's viewpoint to make this upcoming discipline as appealing as possible to the entire viewing audience. But how far do you think we need to fundamentally change our sport to get the viewers that we're not even sure exist? And will it even be exciting by then, or different enough to the current disciplines?

Let's break it down. The new format can't be another fully individual race because we have covered them already and I'm not sure how keen international orienteers will be on an urban... Relay has already been covered very successfully too so it has to be some sort of head to head, but without a variation of gaffling this 'isn't orienteering' either. Farsta** is great fun too and used a lot for training (and often racing in Scandinavia), but I really don't see how this is any simpler than the current setup Adrian..? If anything it would just mean that a larger proportion of the race is used for forking and there would be even less of an idea about where the lead is. Yes, maybe farsta would have a higher orienteering challenge, but that's not saying that the knockout format reduces the difficulty to a 'kiddies level' - just look at the podiums for both the finals last Thursday. Plus, a rapid individual qualification race that has potential to be planned very technically is required to even enter these rounds. I think of the new format, across all 4 rounds, more as an all-round test of orienteering athlete ability.

The unfortunate truth I'm heading towards is that this is looking like a situation where unexperienced viewers might have to adapt - or the IOF wouldn't have endorsed the new format. And although this may put some people off, I think done well with the correct commentators, graphics, intro, etc. Knockout Sprint can also attract a lot of attention. With a professional enough broadcast and a big enough platform, viewers can even be pushed to learn about the sport. So rather than changes at the fundamental format level, what's needed more in this case is development at the coverage level.

Remember that the semis and finals televised last week was the IOF's first shot at it. I for one was impressed with what I saw, eg. how they had live feedback from start officials of the runner's decisions and the quality/accuracy of the GPS.

However, I also agree that my viewpoint is biased here, so take from it what you will

**Some shameless advertisement - For anyone keen to try out Farsta and live in/nearby Edinburgh, EUOC FWTN League's opening event next week on Calton Hill will be using this format with a mass start option for those who want it!

[andypat]

I don't see how it's any less confusing than relay gaffling, so I assume you're coming from the IOF's viewpoint to make this upcoming discipline as appealing as possible to the entire viewing audience. But how far do you think we need to fundamentally change our sport to get the viewers that we're not even sure exist?

Yes, that, although I disagree to an extent that its not more confusing than relay gaffling. At least in relay gaffling theres an obvious progression through to the end (notwithstanding issues around shorter gaffles etc), whereas in loops its not immediately obvious who is on what loop etc so it takes a higher level of engagement to follow.

I dont think there are any easy answers. I can see why the financial glass ceiling of the Olympics is appealing, but I also worry about the impact on the sport itself and can see why people rail agasint this.
I love sprint orienteering, but I also worry that putting this up on TV as orienteering to people who've never actually competed might come across as a bunch of big kids playing hide and seek around some buildings. Its really dificult to convey the level of speed and skill involved on the telly. Time will tell.