British Middle Seedings

[King Penguin]

Anyone know how these are done ? In my class at least the running order bears no resemblance to current rankings.

[Jon X]

Hi KP, I can tell you

For non-elite classes (in this context elite is the 18/20/21 classes), the requirement is to keep the minimum required separation between seeded runners, whilst also as far as possible respecting any requests on start times.

Minimum separation between seeded runners for British Middle is 2mins, and seeding is applied to the top 10 ranked.

(This also means - and is explicitly stated in the rules - that provided the minimum start interval on a course is the same (or greater than) the minimum separation required between seeds, there is no requirement to do any further seeding). I have lent a hand on the British Middle seeding so in fact we have aimed to keep seeds a minimum of 4mins apart wherever possible.

The situation is different for the elite classes as these have all runners seeded into groups by ranking and then a random order within each group. Where these classes share a course with others (as M18/20 and W18/20 do), they have a dedicated elite start block within that course.

[yted]

Injured at the moment so just interested!
Have you used the rankings or the forest-only rankings?
Is it the top 10 ranked per course or per class?

[Homer]

I've not seen this is the pre-event details before:

You must not edit your BMC start time without first obtaining the permission of the organiser or you will be disqualified from the event.

Another new way to get disqualified

[Jon X]

Injured at the moment so just interested!
Have you used the rankings or the forest-only rankings?
Is it the top 10 ranked per course or per class?

It is the top 10 ranked on each class, so for many courses this means some multiple of 10 are seeded overall.

The current competition rules pre-date the addition of additional forest/urban filters on the ranking list. In my view there is some work needed to decide on best approach there for future, I plan to ask Rules Group to consider it. (Eg currently plenty of people have six ranking scores for the overall list, but far fewer have six forest AND six urban, so some analysis needed to see whether using the filter would work well or simply mean a greater number of potential medallists end up not seeded….)

[graeme]

For non-elite classes (in this context elite is the 18/20/21 classes), the requirement is to keep the minimum required separation between seeded runners,

The situation is different for the elite classes as these have all runners seeded into groups by ranking.

Indeed, for non-elite courses the best runners should start as far apart as possible (allowing requests on start block). For elite courses the best runners start as close together as possible. Thats obviously the fairest way to do is because?

[rf_fozzy]

For non-elite classes (in this context elite is the 18/20/21 classes), the requirement is to keep the minimum required separation between seeded runners,

The situation is different for the elite classes as these have all runners seeded into groups by ranking.

Indeed, for non-elite courses the best runners should start as far apart as possible (allowing requests on start block). For elite courses the best runners start as close together as possible. Thats obviously the fairest way to do is because?

Without any special knowledge, this is surely the pragmatic approach?

For reasons:
1. Rankings for elites should (are?) be possibly maybe be more accurate? Or at least representative?
2. In my experience, the Older classes tend to be more vocal in their displeasure if they are not allowed to do something close to what they want (casting no aspersions of course!) - imagine if they wanted an early start and couldn't have one because of rankings?

[pete.owens]

Indeed, for non-elite courses the best runners should start as far apart as possible (allowing requests on start block). For elite courses the best runners start as close together as possible. Thats obviously the fairest way to do is because?

Not really. The minimum gap between seeded runners is the same for all classes (2 minutes).

The differences reflect the greater importance of the elite races:
1. That the elite start list has a 2 minute gap for everyone, whereas for non-elites non-seeded runners can be inserted into the odd minutes of the start list thus accommodating a greater number of runners per course.

2. That the elite start list also arranges for the seeded runners to run at a similar time of day. This means fairer competition with all runners experiencing similar conditions such as tracking, daylight and weather. Also it also better for spectators with the likely winners coming in to the finish over a fairly short period.

[graeme]

Not really.

In principle not really, but in fact really

we have aimed to keep seeds a minimum of 4mins apart wherever possible.

[Homer]

Scottish Middle Champs could ideally have done with a little seeding.

1st and 2nd on Men's Supervets started 1 minute apart and ran much of the course together...

[NeilC]

Another new way to get disqualified

Apologies for the off-topic post but having just had a first look at the JK final details I see another way of getting disqualified - looking at your map during the timed out road crossing. No idea how i) that information is going to be made clear to the competitor on the course or ii) how it can possibly be policed fairly. My bet is that lots of people will look at their maps but nobody will be disqualified.

[SeanC]

I always do that, I take as long as possible to check my route on a timed out road crossing, and a nice rest at the same time.

[IanD]

If they really don't want people to look at maps, the solution is to have two of them. Drop part one before the road crossing; pick up part two after it.
With the entry fee of the JK, the extra map printing cost wouldn't be noticed.

[Snail]

Not sure why it would unfair if everyone has the same allowance, say 2 minutes. Which leads me to wonder if it might be an unlimited time out, with some being able to cross immediately and others have to wait for a minute or two. But that might be unfair irrespective of whether anyone looks at their map.

[Scott]

If they really don't want people to look at maps, the solution is to have two of them. Drop part one before the road crossing; pick up part two after it.
With the entry fee of the JK, the extra map printing cost wouldn't be noticed.

I'm pretty sure we've had exactly this solution at a previous JK - maybe Holmbush 2017? If you're determined to prevent people taking advantage of the timed-out crossing to read ahead then it's the only real option. As NeilC says, I don't see how that prohibition can be fairly enforced otherwise.

Edit: just spotted that this year's timed-out crossing is actually at the sprint. The other consideration there is that those athletes who take longer to cross will get a significant benefit from the chance to clear some lactate and get out of oxygen debt.