Night-O and Ranking Points

[ianandmonika]

140 competitors (exc Yellow/White) at today's Guisecliffe event where ranking points awarded. Over 280 entrants (exc novices) for 2012 British Nights but no ranking points. See no logic for night events not being for ranking points when day events with small attendance qualify.

[Big Jon]

Was it the right decision.....

NO, "strange results" orienteering is always producing strange results, one of the joys of the sport -the top runner can always make a howler of an error.

The most strange thing is the decision, not the night orienteering.

How about revisiting it now and allowing them? Who do we need to lobby to get this anomaly changed?

[madmike]

How about revisiting it now and allowing them? Who do we need to lobby to get this anomaly changed?

d'accordo - I agree it should be revisited now

Who to lobby - A very good question Big Jon, it is not obvious from the ToRs for committees and groups on the BOF website - in fact the ToRs for competitions/events appeared to have been copied from a commercial company as they are all about delivering to the Board on unspecified targets and not about orienteering

I suggest Mike Hamilton in the first instance and he can pass it on to whoever is now responsible.

I also note there was a level B event in the SE today where no runner on black course will get ranking points

[ianandmonika]

Scott Collier was on black in SE event - maybe he will fix it.

[Spookster]

Scott Collier was on black in SE event - maybe he will fix it.

The "fix" is to get more people to run Black (or not to put on a Black). Unless you get 10 finishers, it can't be ranked under the present rules.

[Scott]

I think it will be one for the new Events & Competitions Committee, or some subgroup thereof.

As greywolf has said, whether or not to include night events was probably the most marginal decision the original workgroup made. The consultation brought in a pretty much 50/50 mix of responses strongly in favour and responses strongly opposed.

Sadly, from what those more mathematically-inclined folk have said previously, I'm not sure whether current algorithm is capable of producing sensible points when there are only six people on a course , although, as I've said before, it may be worth looking at whether it would be worthwhile dropping the threshold to (eg.) eight.

[SJC]

Is it possible to run the British and Scottish Nights results through the ranking process and see what sort of points would be allocated ? That would be a simple way of finding out whether they are out of line or not.

[mharky]

If the stattos think 10 is the minimum number, then that's fine. But any qualifying night races should really be scoring.

[Mrs H]

I'm not sure whether current algorithm is capable of producing sensible points when there are only six people on a course .

Yes but...... if they were ranking events then maybe that might attract a few more people to do night events

[Scott]

Yes but...... if they were ranking events then maybe that might attract a few more people to do night events

Sorry, should have been clearer - that was in response to madmike's comment about the Black course at Furnace Ponds today, where the offer of potential ranking points sadly doesn't seem to have been much of an incentive

[IanD]

Of course night events will produce anomalous ranking points. Darkness increases the technical difficulty (however bright your torch) and a lot of people can't cope.

Orienteering is supposed to be a running sport. Allowing ranking points from night events would penalise good runners who can't navigate, an outrageous idea!

(Day) events in genuine TD5 terrain should be excluded from the rankings by the same logic.

[SJC]

Allowing ranking points from night events would penalise good runners who can't navigate.

It would, but that isn't the point. If the argument about unusually large point allocations is correct then it would penalise anyone who didn't attend the night events. This is a similar argument to that for not making major events worth more points. It simply becomes an attendance award (assuming that you do go to at least the six events required).

[IanD]

If the argument about unusually large point allocations is correct then it would penalise anyone who didn't attend

If I understand correctly, that argument was that courses with small fields produce erratic results from the ranking calculations, night events tend to have small fields, so night events should be excluded.

It has since been discovered, (surprise!), that day events can have small fields, and the ranking system has been amended so that events with small (defined as less than 10) fields are excluded.

Therefore that argument for excluding night events no longer applies. Although of course some night courses would still produce no ranking points due to the "small fields" rule.

[SJC]

If I understand correctly, that argument was that courses with small fields produce erratic results from the ranking calculations.

Correct, but again that isn't the point of this argument.
The EUOC Big Weekend Ranking points discussion went into great detail about the pros and cons of including events where results do not conform to the norm (regardless of the size of the field). It is the supposed unusual distribution of results at night events that has led to their exclusion, not the small number of competitors.

[IanD]

Correct, but again that isn't the point of this argument.
The EUOC Big Weekend Ranking points discussion went into great detail about the pros and cons of including events where results do not conform to the norm (regardless of the size of the field). It is the supposed unusual distribution of results at night events that has led to their exclusion, not the small number of competitors.

Nobody in that thread managed to substantiate any reason for excluding night events - beyond the tendency for night events, being more technical, to favour the better orienteers.