British Sprints
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: British Sprints
Another comment about the format. Larger classes have two (or more) finals, smaller ones have only one; while there's a lot of sense in this, it changes the best strategy for an "average" orienteer. If there are A and B finals, you need to give the qualifier your best effort to try to make the A final, whereas if everyone goes into the A final, you might as well take the qualifier steadily (just being careful not to mispunch), leaving more energy to give the final your all.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: British Sprints
awk wrote:Arnold wrote:At the SE Sprints in June*, there will be 2 races with the second one starting exactly 90 minutes after the first one. So no excessive hanging around. Mind you the winner is the one with the best combined time, which makes that format possible.
But that's not sprint - it's almost middle distance with an interval. You don't decide the winner of the 100m by running 2x100m races and adding the times together; nor do you decide Long or Short Championships by adding the results of 2 races together. Sadly, the YH sprints this year are using the same format...
But it probably makes the day attractive enough to get a reasonable entry. And presumably means everyone has to perform as well as possible in both races? How far apart would you want them to be before you would consider them sprints? I guess more than 90 minutes but less than 5 hours.
It is a necessary evil that all our ... Championship races are a bit of a compromise between finding the best in each age class (probably from just 10% of the entry) and making the whole event / day / weekend attractive enough that the other 90% are prepared to travel and make it economically viable. You could have a 'purer' championship with only the top 10% taking part, but if it means 10x the entry fee that probably won't work either!
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: British Sprints
I have no problem with the 90 minutes interval - that's not the issue. The issue is adding the times of the two races together to produce the result. The result should be based on one race.
As I said, Ebor found an excellent solution, providing 2 races to attract people, both put on in a reasonable time frame (I think it was also 90 minutes difference), but the championship was decided on a single race. There's compromise and there's compromise, but nobody would pretend that adding any two distances together would make a race of that distance (2 x 100m = 100m? 2 x 10ks = 10k? 2 x middle distance events = middle distance?), so don't do it for sprint!
As I said, Ebor found an excellent solution, providing 2 races to attract people, both put on in a reasonable time frame (I think it was also 90 minutes difference), but the championship was decided on a single race. There's compromise and there's compromise, but nobody would pretend that adding any two distances together would make a race of that distance (2 x 100m = 100m? 2 x 10ks = 10k? 2 x middle distance events = middle distance?), so don't do it for sprint!
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
I agree my solution was excellent (! - cheque in the post)... it was also fun to plan as I gave the "urban courses" a different twist with longer legs. Another plus was that the Yorkshire Champs prize-giving could be done between the two runs.
- yted
- light green
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 pm
Re: British Sprints
Although a single race would make life easier in some regards, it would also make the event less viable.
I have no particular issue with 2 races with combined time.
But it negates part of the supposed justification of the format, which is to semi-mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup.
You could have Q Day 1, Final Day 2 with relays in the middle if you wanted, but I suspect that would weaken the relays signficantly (I know already that some won't do relays on Day 1 if sprint is Day 2). It would also make the weekend harder to stage I fear (as would trying to stage the relays on the same day as the sprints if a single race as suggested - not every area is suitable for both and split sites would stretch people, plus getting people from site A to site B).
I have no particular issue with 2 races with combined time.
But it negates part of the supposed justification of the format, which is to semi-mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup.
You could have Q Day 1, Final Day 2 with relays in the middle if you wanted, but I suspect that would weaken the relays signficantly (I know already that some won't do relays on Day 1 if sprint is Day 2). It would also make the weekend harder to stage I fear (as would trying to stage the relays on the same day as the sprints if a single race as suggested - not every area is suitable for both and split sites would stretch people, plus getting people from site A to site B).
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
awk wrote: The issue is...
The fundamental problem is making the organisers work out and publish a start list under time pressure. With a timed start n a race people care about.
Organisers know its going to be hard, so they factor in a huge gap between qualifiers and finals. But even then they underestimate quite how hard it is, and year-in year-out the starts get delayed.
I know they worked hard to get the software right. As a juror, I checked ahead of time which of four possible interpretations of the rules they were using, so that we could decide ahead of time how to deal with protests in that area. But ANY complaint-protest-jury process will eat time before you can run the software. Then if people protest against the start list - more time goes. And if you want to to be a serious event, you should expect protests.
The new qualifier format is both fairer for competitors and easier for the organisers, but they still didn't resolve the issue that causes the delays.
nobody would pretend that adding any two distances together would make a race of that distance
Whereas adding middle and long is fine? ... Was the JK such a disaster when based on adding times for two long races? JOK chasing sprint anyone?
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: British Sprints
but they still didn't resolve the issue that causes the delays.
Not having been to the event, what did produce such a long delay between the heats and finals ?
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:The fundamental problem is making the organisers work out and publish a start list under time pressure.....The new qualifier format is both fairer for competitors and easier for the organisers, but they still didn't resolve the issue that causes the delays.
So if it's fairer and easier, why the 5 hour gap this year as opposed to 2 last year? It looks very much as if there was more to the delay this year than just the system, and that the latter hasn't been given a fair test. We need to know what happened.
Whereas adding middle and long is fine? ... Was the JK such a disaster when based on adding times for two long races? JOK chasing sprint anyone?
That's a completely invalid comparison. The JK Individual Trophy doesn't pretend to be a single distance/discipline; it's effectively a multi-day competition, like the O-ringen etc, just that it's a two-day not five-day event. The British Sprint Champs is meant to be a championship in sprint, ie a single race of 12-15 mins, not some sort of multi-day league.
The JOK Chasing sprint is a chasing "sprint" (if a sprint can be defined as something as long as 25-35 mins total time) - it's different again. Personally, I find the 2nd half fun, but not for a championship (although one could, perhaps, organise a champs where the sprint champs was decided on the 'prologue', and then a chase provided as an extra? I would guess that the organisation would be just as difficult as at present - although as not a champs, maybe not the same pressures?).
rf_fozzy wrote:It would also make the weekend harder to stage I fear (as would trying to stage the relays on the same day as the sprints if a single race as suggested...)
All fair comment. So perhaps do as Ebor did, and have a second race afterwards that, added to the first championship sprint times, makes an element of the UK Urban League/UK Orienteering League etc.?
yted wrote:I agree my solution was excellent (! - cheque in the post)... it was also fun to plan as I gave the "urban courses" a different twist with longer legs. Another plus was that the Yorkshire Champs prize-giving could be done between the two runs.
Well done Steve. My only regret is that YHOA (and others) haven't learned the lesson - everybody I've spoken to who was there reckoned you got that absolutely right. one of the best sprint competitions I've been to.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
awk wrote:All fair comment. So perhaps do as Ebor did, and have a second race afterwards that, added to the first championship sprint times, makes an element of the UK Urban League/UK Orienteering League etc.?
Then what is the point of the 2nd part? There isn't one. It's just a single race.
So people will put on a single race.
I don't think various leagues are any sort of a draw unless you are already invested in them.
It also has 2 downsides. 1. It doesn't mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup which it is supposed to semi-mirror - which is part of the justification of the current format.
2. It potentially leads to isssues around seeding/start lists and who sets off after who. The current format should prevent these leading to protests.
The solution to the gap between the two events is that we need a single software solution from BOF that can be run with minimal issue.
But you are always looking at a 2hr gap withe a Q-F setup.
rf_fozzy wrote:As for the gap between Q & F, it will depend on the event, but....
- You need to give 45mins from last start in Q to courses close time
- You need to allow 15mins for protests (min)
- You need to allow time to check times and produce start lists
- You need to allow time to set up the part 2 (finals?) start area
- You may or may not need to collect in/put out extra controls
Point 3 is typically where the issues arise.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
Btw - is the EBOR event you're referring to the one at the tiny garden centre?
I don't think you've any choice on that area, as you're using the same competition area twice, which would be sub-optimal for a British Sprints - just my opinion.
(BTW - not passing any specific judgement on the EBOR event - I wasn't there)
I don't think you've any choice on that area, as you're using the same competition area twice, which would be sub-optimal for a British Sprints - just my opinion.
(BTW - not passing any specific judgement on the EBOR event - I wasn't there)
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
It makes travelling to Northern Ireland a bit more worthwhile! A long way to go to run 1 x 15 min race even if not in Ulster.
It's a strange thing to me that orienteers say this but people will run a 5K in the right circumstances anywhere. Nobody would say NI, Cornwall or Scotland was too far to travel to take part in the British Athletics Champs if they were a 5K / Steeplechase specialist, and sprinters often complain the opposite - that they have to run too many heats crammed in a short period to get the best in the final! Especially if they are in relay teams too.
Finally, 2 people reached over the wall to punch #167 in the heat while I took a legal route there. I did report this at download. Perils of SIAC, or poor controlling?
SIAC does make planning a sprint a bit of a pain because of this. I wonder if anyone has experimented with some sort of foil backing board to block the signal? if it was foreseeable then if it needed to be there it should have been marshalled. If volunteer demand is too high to do that everywhere perhaps camera's are cheap enough now to make it a viable thing to skim through afterwards?
only because thats what you are used to. In some other sports a combined time is quite common (canoe slalom, sliding sports - bobsleigh etc), it removes some of the possibility that an individual got lucky with the terrain etc. In sprint O that might be - Seeing another competitor which saves you a second on spotting the control, having to avoid another competitor which loses you a second, having to avoid the public/dogs, if it rains who got the dry course, etc. Set up so you run in reverse order also adds spectator interest for the finish - nobody knows the winner till the very end.The result should be based on one race.
"WE" (the BOF membership) should always question claims like this. The vast majority of the BOF membership are never going to a WOC final. Why is the way our sport's national championships run set up to be optimal for half a dozen people who can run as much training as they want in the WOC format to perfect their tactics.But it negates part of the supposed justification of the format, which is to semi-mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
Atomic wrote:"WE" (the BOF membership) should always question claims like this. The vast majority of the BOF membership are never going to a WOC final. Why is the way our sport's national championships run set up to be optimal for half a dozen people who can run as much training as they want in the WOC format to perfect their tactics.But it negates part of the supposed justification of the format, which is to semi-mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup.
Best not to believe everything you read online. Pre-2011 there was a single open sprint championships set up to mirror the WOC arrangement, the 21s had to compete with the best juniors and over 35s for a coveted place in the A final. There was also a separate championships for the non-21 age classes consisting of two races whose times were added together to give the overall results. From 2011 the two championships were combined and the Q/F format was kept for all age classes, not because of WOC but because it was believed that competitors liked, and wanted, the challenge of reaching a particular final. The revised format removes the complications of the parallel qualifying heats but allowing half the field to qualify for the A-final rather dilutes the jeopardy associated with the qualifier, where previously even potential medallists could miss out on an A-final place with a less than clean run.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:As a juror, I checked ahead of time which of four possible interpretations of the rules they were using, so that we could decide ahead of time how to deal with protests in that area.
There are four interpretations of the rules?? If that's the case, don't they need clarifying?
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:The fundamental problem is making the organisers work out and publish a start list under time pressure.....Organisers know its going to be hard, so they factor in a huge gap between qualifiers and finals. But even then they underestimate quite how hard it is, and year-in year-out the starts get delayed.
Yes re year-in year-out...but this year the process SHOULD have been simpler, the rules had been changed so that (outside of elites who still have parallel heats) it was essentially 'reverse the qualifier results, put the first 50% of people in the B Final in that order and the remainder in the A Final in that order.
It may have had troubles this year for whatever reason but fundamentally the new process is now one that should be doable fairly straightforwardly (even manually if necessary) in the time available - I think the revised approach at the very least deserves a trial of more than one year.
I know they worked hard to get the software right. But ANY complaint-protest-jury process will eat time before you can run the software. Then if people protest against the start list - more time goes. And if you want to to be a serious event, you should expect protests.
I agree that there needs to be time to deal with protests. BUT one of the clear learnings from last year's difficulties with the start lists for the final was that it is not wise for the software only to be able to generate and publish start lists for all classes or no classes, even if only one class is awaiting outcome of an organiser/jury decision.
There is also no reason not to do a provisional run of the startlists whilst the jury is meeting....then if the protest is rejected, the startlists can be published immediately. (Plus it becomes clear quickly if the software is for some reason not producing the startlists as anticipated!)
It would also be massively beneficial for relieving some of the pressure on startlist production for the event to publish the following beforehand
- a table with the number of entrants for each class, and the number that will make the A Final (this is based on entrants not starters so is known in advance)
- the overall start window to be used for the final (or for each course if this varies significantly)
- a table stating the start order for each class on each course in the final (eg 'these five classes will run in this order W14B-W50B-M70A-W65A-W60A'). (I appreciate exact windows for each class cannot be published as the size of each group will vary slightly depending on how many people actually show up on the day).
I presume the organisers have this all ready in advance anyway (!) so there is no good reason that I can think of not to provide it - and with that in place then most people should be able to have a very good idea of their start time for the final even before the start lists are published - much more helpful for knowing post-qualifier when to eat/drink/warmup/snooze/etc.
The startlist delay was a pretty minor blip in the grand scheme of things - definitely a really enjoyable event this year!
Why did I do that...
- Jon X
- green
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:20 pm
- Location: should be out training
Re: British Sprints
Atomic wrote:
It's a strange thing to me that orienteers say this but people will run a 5K in the right circumstances anywhere. Nobody would say NI, Cornwall or Scotland was too far to travel to take part in the British Athletics Champs if they were a 5K / Steeplechase specialist, and sprinters often complain the opposite - that they have to run too many heats crammed in a short period to get the best in the final! Especially if they are in relay teams too.
That's not comparing like with like, you have to be quite a serious 5k runner to travel 'anywhere', and there's an entry standard for such events. Orienteering is reliant on those doing it for fun rather than medals to make the British Champs financially viable, and it shouldn't take that for granted. Not saying it does, but then...
But it negates part of the supposed justification of the format, which is to semi-mirror the WOC qualifier/final setup.
Atomic wrote:"WE" (the BOF membership) should always question claims like this. The vast majority of the BOF membership are never going to a WOC final. Why is the way our sport's national championships run set up to be optimal for half a dozen people who can run as much training as they want in the WOC format to perfect their tactics.
Agreed - I've been waiting for someone to tell me the reason some people get a 1:4000 map is to mirror WOC, when that is irrelevant for most entrants.
- Len
- white
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:19 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests