Testing of new spreading system: Runners Choice

[harry]

I see that in Norway and sweden there have already been a few tests of the newly proposed spreading system: Runners Choice.

For those who have not heard about this yet, basically what happens is at some points in the course there is a gaffled/ forked part with 3 different options. The options can be just one control different or maybe a section (I have seen both but usually it is only one forked control). You have all the gaffles on your map A/B/C and at the control before you get to the gaffle you have to make an independent decision about which forking you want to take and confirm your choice by punching box A B or C.

What do people think about this and is anyone testing it in the UK?
It is unconfirmed whether it will be used in any international events - maybe it will be like MicrO and binned at the last minute or maybe they will use it for the proposed mass start/ chasing start format.

Here is a report from one of the test events:
http://www.orientering.no/nyheter/Sider ... ismak.aspx

[Gross]

It's in WOC 2012

[King Penguin]

Immediate reaction is that it sounds like an odd mix of course and score event all in one.
Gut feel is that it's better to keep the two styles separate. I enjoy both but at the top level its just another variable which can influence the result. No doubt the intention is that all the options will look very similar in distance / terrain, but if there is variability in runnability which cannot be discerned from the map, or visibility/hidden-ness of the control, it introduces more "luck" to the result.
Different route choice options on a common leg are one thing (and I suppose it could be argued that the forked controls are just different routechoices from the previous common control to the next common control), but this is going a step farther.
There must also be a risk of taking option B (for example) but accidentally punching box A at the split, which presumably will result in a MP and DSQ.

Psychologically it could be interesting if runners are together when arriving at the decision point - stay in a pack / safety in numbers or different choice to try to drop the rest.

[AndyC]

If you were following someone wouldn't you just select the same gaffle as him?
Makes it obvious but doesn't stop it.
If you improved the software so it wouldn't accept two matching choices in a row - or maybe in a row within 1 minute that might help.
And how do you deal with the idiot who punches A and then does B? (KP posted while I was writing)

Does add a good idea if one gaffle is shorter but highly technical and another is significantly longer but less technical competitors can run to their strengths

[graeme]

One of many we came up with
http://news.worldofo.com/2009/12/21/ext ... enteering/

(EDIT - actually, I now remember using it at a long-O in the Forest of Dean in 1986)

The difficulty is how to make sure that the choice is really independent. Even if the act of punching can be concealed, in individual races it's in the interest of *both* runners to take the *same* option. So they're likely to cooperate.

It might work better in a head to head race, but I guess people will soon complain about being "gaffled out of it" if their choice turns out to have slightly rougher going or their flag is more hidden than the other. But a head to head race is already fair: this would tip the balance toward nav not running, but at the price of some fairness.

I think the system they used at WOC is the best - a short loop run either earlier or later in the course. Combined with the now-ubiquitous spectator control it need not be too intrusive on the course. Alternately, at WOC with manned controls, some kind of timed-out no drafting rule (earlier starter has to wait 30sec at a control). Even this has the problem that they would catch up - at WOC level most fastest splits are run by someone who just made a mistake.

[Red Adder]

ridiculous

[King Penguin]

.... at WOC level most fastest splits are run by someone who just made a mistake.

Applies equally to the "also rans" like me. I am most likely to get a fastest split when, for example, I relocate at 5 when going for 4. My split for 4 will be poor but 5 becomes an easy leg and fast split.

[harry]

It's in WOC 2012

hope that's a typical Gross weird joke????

I liked the spreading system at woc long this year. 3 min start interval and good spreading system which actually splits people and is relatively straightforward to run and understand.

Runners choice sounds like an interesting training concept anyway so i reckon we should test it and train it. Good training for extra stress anyway regardless of whether it makes it into a woc / world cup setting. I'm looking forward to seeing a UK cup with runners choice on the programme next year

I wondered the same thing re. how is it an independent choice if you are totally together with someone and see them punch and just punch the same box? I dunno never seen it in practice.

As for the idiot who punches A and runs B that will definitely happen! I know at least 2 girls forgot to punch at drinks controls in the woc long final (tv camera probably showed them at the control) and one was disqualified for running with a gps watch (presumably forgot to take it off- HARSH!) 2 of those 3 DSQs would have beaten me but I guess you have to play the sport by its rules. Even if they are crazy or harsh.

[harry]

as opposed to the woc sprint quali where you don't have to follow the rules as long as enough other people break the same rule as you ie jump of uncrossable drop off wall thing. a la Grupetto at Tour de France - the French love to DSQ people but will bend the rules if it's 40 people or more!!

[mappingmum]

Bizarre. Gives the runners too much . . . . . . err . . . . choice and therefore the opportunity to play tactical games as has already been mentionned.

A recipe for disaster re complaints about unfair gaffles after the event.

Sounds like the idea where runners are free to chose the map scale they want.

Surely nothing is fairer than you run exact same course as all the others.

[andypat]

This might be a bit of a cynical viewpoint, but if you look at the examples (from Harry's weblink) it seems to me that if you have a runners choice control between controls 8 and 10 (9a, 9b and 9c) all you are doing is creating an artifical route choice of 3 options between controls 8 and 10.

Isnt that just a lazy substitute for good planning?

Why not just plan a good leg between 8 and 10 and leave out the 3 controls?

[madmike]

Isn't this effectively what happens on the new c course at OMM?

[graeme]

Surely nothing is fairer than you run exact same course as all the others.

The problem is that two people running together go faster than one running alone. There's plenty of evidence of this from any long WOC race you care to look at. And this is unfair not because following is cheating, but because whether they get to do it is out of the control of the runners.

I've watched elite orienteering , and one feature I noticed about elite runners is that they don't waste energy whinging/worrying about stupid rules, they just accept them and are totally focused on getting round as fast as possible. Under current rules, following is part of the game, "earned" by good qualification results. Nobody wants to look too hard at the splits for the great results GG (8th) and Scotia (6th) got in the last two WOCs.

But those of us interested in staging the events do whinge/worry about stupid rules. We want the race to be as fair as possible. We feel that if someone bins six minutes early in the course, then runs round the rest with the winner, they haven't shown, on that performance, that they are the third best orienteer on the day and deserve a medal. But with the rules as they stand, we would not criticise anything that the athletes have done.

[Arnold]

There's a great mass start Long O in the US called the "Billygoat" where they've used the Runners Choice forking for ages. Incidentally they also allow you to miss out any 1 control on the course (sometimes 2 but not consecutive) which does give the whole thing a really interesting twist.

It's a brilliant competition but it does introduce a small element of luck (plus of course it doesn't force-split the field so if you want to follow you can and indeed following is explicitly encouraged - there's a "jock stuffer" award for the most egregious example).

So I don't think it's suitable for WOC or any other serious competition.

[Arnold]

just remembered the 2002 (2001?) Billygoat where Graeme beat me into 3rd place...
..so clearly this method of forking is most unfair!