gaffling the mini-relay

[Roger]

At the JK mini-relay (M/W12-, yellow standard) there were two different courses, Ha and Hb. Teams had two Hb's and one Ha.

Of the 16 teams that ran Hb first, none were disqualified. Of the eight teams that ran Ha first, seven were disqualified.

This is stretching a point slightly because four of the seven DQs came on leg 2, but it seems that about half (three out of eight) of the youngsters who should have split from the large pack and struck out on their own didn't do so. I reckon that they were disadvantaged by the uneven split, especially as many will have lacked the self-confidence required to insist that they were right and the pack was wrong (for them).

With a web of rides offering a plethora of line features, it would have been straightforward -- and fairer -- to have split the teams three ways.

Should the mini-relay be gaffled at all? In my opinion 'yes'. JK2002 in the Forest of Dean did a superb job, with three options and the use of ditches as well as paths to make genuine yellow-standard courses. But if the planner is struggling and can come up with only two options, it's probably fairer to drop one of them than to have a 'large pack' and a 'small pack' on the first leg of this particular relay.

Does this matter? Yes. [insert favourite platitude about youth being the future of the sport]

[guest]

Just appeal for mispunching and you'll get reinstated

[tendon]

I reckon that they were disadvantaged by the uneven split, especially as many will have lacked the self-confidence required to insist that they were right and the pack was wrong (for them).

I'm not convinced the splits for the mispunches support this - the 4 mps on Hb occur after the split, not at it (and 2 of those runners were together at the preceding control). Of the 3 on Ha, only 2 occur at the first split, and one of those was clearly in the lead at the time. However, the Ha splits do show a lot of time loss on the first split.

I do agree with Roger that the gaffling for the mini courses needs to be very fair and obvious - or avoided.

[seabird]

As the planner, I'll own up to feeling I got this wrong.

I believe the mini-relay should be gaffled if the area allows, although not all areas will provide TD2 gaffles. It is supposed to be orienteering, not follow my leader.

I appreciate that some mini-relays are gaffled and some are not. Last year's JK was. This years BRC was not. The latter may have resulted in some competitors expecting the same as this year's BRC.

What could have been done.
1. There should and could have been 3 alternative gaffles, or if like last year's JK which had only had two, there should be a 50/50 split on legs 1 and 2 with everyone running a common last leg.
2. The competitors could have been forewarned in the programme notes (although I did not really consider this until too late, i.e. after BRC had no gaffles when the programme was already published). The information could still have gone in the newsheet.
3. The competitors should have been informed verbally at the first leg mass start, and second and third leg runners told at map collection.

I considered these possibilities in advance and rejected them. In hindsight the wrong call.

Apologies to any young people whose day was spoilt as a result.

[graeme]

As father of one of the DQ'ed chilldren on his first ever relay I've been trying to work out what happened.

Firstly, thanks to whoever thought to hand out creme eggs at the finish - after a
conversation in the rain which went
G: "Well done James"
J: "It was NOT well done (sobs, stomps off to download)"
The egg was just what was needed.

I suspect that after doing the split correctly, Hb had to go past a ride junction control from Ha en route to their own. And (I speculate) if that control was correctly placed for Ha (i.e. leading off up the right track for Ha) then it would have led the Hb competitors the wrong way, toward their number 8, missing out 7.

So, it wasn't the gaffling per se which did them in on Hb, it was having to go past another control on a similar feature with a similar number 156/157.

As for gaffling - I suspect its better to have it for the older competitors but not the younger ones, so you can't win. I did ask at enquiries the day before whether the courses were gaffled, and they wouldn't tell me - and I mean wouldn't, not couldn't, Mrs Carlyle spent a fair bit of time finding out. Would be nice to have a guideline on it.

I don't think Tim gaffled the mini relay at the British (?).

String course relay anyone?

Does it matter? Not much [if we're relying on current orienteers' children to be the future of the sport we're being very narrow-minded indeed]

Graeme

[seabird]

[quote="graeme"]
I did ask at enquiries the day before whether the courses were gaffled, and they wouldn't tell me - and I mean wouldn't, not couldn't, Mrs Carlyle spent a fair bit of time finding out. Would be nice to have a guideline on it.

Graeme

Wendy's reticence was not bloody-mindedness, but simply reflected my view that, for fairness, all competitors needed the same information. As accepted earlier that should have been more information than they were actually given.

[tendon]

I don't think Tim gaffled the mini relay at the British (?).

I did start to develop gaffled legs for the mini relay on Gt Common, but considered the potential for unforced error too great in a relatively tight area so didn't take it very far. The first (abandoned) set of mini courses on Woolbeding were fully gaffled so it was more a feature of the area and scope than an underlying principle.

Seabird, I thought you did a brilliant job to get all those courses and people into that area - fast, furious and close - just what the guideline required.

[Roger]

Thanks to those who've analysed further (splits weren't accessible when I posted last night).

Of the 3 on Ha, only 2 occur at the first split, and one of those was clearly in the lead at the time.

In the lead on Ha, yes, but 10s down on the leaders on Hb and having just had five common controls...