Rankings (again)

[mharky]

...and hardly any orienteers read BOF guidelines anyway.

That sounds a bit like "People don't know the rules, so we don't have to follow them".

[Scott]

People expect level C events to be run as per the level C guidelines, which clearly your event is not. Rather it is a level D event with 4 courses that thinks its a level C.

Those Level C Guidelines in full:

5. Level C events

5.1 Level C events provide opportunities for participants seeking competition at a wider variety of venues and against a varied group of competitors but without wishing to travel great distances.

5.2 Level C events may be of any type, as defined in 2.2 above. Clubs have the freedom to select the format of event to suit the needs of the British Orienteering membership and prospective participants.

5.3 Generic Event Guidelines are available for various formats of event including Long Distance, Middle Distance, Sprint, score, Urban, Relay and Ultra-long. These Guidelines are not prescriptive, but provide general advice to the event officials.

5.4 The organising club shall decide which courses are to be provided based on the requirements of the event.

5.5 Level C events are required to adhere to the quality criteria as detailed in section 7.*

5.6 The scheduling and registration of Level C events is co-ordinated by the Constituent Association Fixtures Secretaries, who have the responsibility for agreeing the events amongst the Clubs within their Association. It is good practice to consult with neighbouring Association Fixtures Secretaries to avoid unwanted clashes when possible.

5.7 Level C Events require a Grade C (or above) Controller, preferably from a different club from that staging the event.

*I can't be bothered to reproduce these here, but if you want to check you can confirm for yourself that they say nothing about the range of courses on offer.

[NeilC]

That sounds a bit like "People don't know the rules, so we don't have to follow them".

Not at all. The Level C event in question is following all the rules, anyone reading the pre-event details knows what to expect. Everyone will be happy (I hope).

Rules/guidelines are useful for officials putting events on and many clubs/individuals in the past have asked for specific guidance on what sort of courses would be appropriate for a particular type of event - hence the generic guidelines.

Most orienteers in my club trust the officials to organise our events in accordance with national regulations and don't have the slightest interest in knowing what these regulations are. For example many would rightly complain if two controls were put in pits 5m apart - but few would know that there is a specific rule banning this.

[Scott]

As an interesting aside, the Level B guidelines say:

4.5 The organising club shall decide which courses are to be provided based on the purpose of the event, but should attempt to meet the requirements of all potential competitors

So at Level B you should try to cater for everybody, but at Level C it's perfectly alright just to put on courses to suit the people who you expect to turn up/the people you are targeting that event at, so long as what's on offer is clearly advertised in advance.

[SeanC]

Neil - is this the so called "SuperSOG"?

This was explained to me at the SEOA development day. Basically SO have an incredibly successful local (level D) series called SOG (Southdowns Gallopen). But they find that many people who go to these don't go to the "bigger" level C and B events. One theory is that some people are reluctant to try them because they are different and possibly because they seem formal/serious/to technical etc. So the SuperSOG is a SOG event registered as a level C to show the SOG locals reluctant to leave their comfort zone that level C and B events aren't that scary after all. To be fair to everyone, SO are raising the quality with controlling and mapping. SO members, please correct me if this is wrong. It all sounds like a sensible development initative and not worth getting in a fuss about.

I've been to Rivers Wood and the description is accurate, in fact it's just like lots of other areas in Sussex and Kent used for level C events. It aint Culbin but unless someone can turn Britain upside down and give it a good shake it's fine for a level C in the South East

[Jayne]

Interesting. We in SLOW have been having the C/D debate for a while. The London park race series is one course, run from a pub but generally the planning is pretty good given the limitations of the terrain, and the competition is pretty good. (often 70-100 people).

We looked at the rules difference between B & D and the main things seem to be (I'm sure Scott will correct me here ) that
a) we need a controller from another club
b) we need to provide toilets.

given the series is run across a number of clubs I reckon a) wouldn't be too hard to sort out and the pub sorts b), and I think now we're registering some as level C.

As far as rankings data is concerned, races where competitors of all abilities/ages/genders running the same course is a pretty good thing. Also seems to work well with newbies doing the same course as everyone else (easy to get to know people & improve when you've got a course to chat through).

[graeme]

Remember, the Ranking system, bless its little cotton socks, has no 'weighting' to distinguish bigger events like National and Regional from any smaller events.

Graeme enters stage left...

To say that, actually, it does. The weightings are..
Level A, B, and C weight =1
Level D weight = 0
There are ways of weighting which are obviously wrong (e.g. "you had a shιt run, but we'll give you an extra 10% on your points because it was at the JK"). There are others which are more reasonable (winning one level A event is as convincing as winning five level C, or somesuch).
I have no idea what somesuch is, but I do know how to swear

[Scott]

We looked at the rules difference between B & D and the main things seem to be (I'm sure Scott will correct me here ) that
a) we need a controller from another club

The guidelines say "a Grade C (or above) Controller, preferably from a different club", so you could get away with one from the same club, but as you say, it should be possible to come to some arrangement with the other London clubs to control each other's races. (It's more of an issue getting somebody from a different club to drive several hundred miles to control a small Level C on some far-flung rural area, which I think is why it's only a "preferably".)

There are ways of weighting which are obviously wrong (e.g. "you had a shιt run, but we'll give you an extra 10% on your points because it was at the JK"). There are others which are more reasonable (winning one level A event is as convincing as winning five level C, or somesuch).

Although I don't believe in an additional weighting for Level A races, I have long said that if we were to it we should do it by using in the formula some multiple of the standard deviation of the points on the course, so that you get bonus points for doing well at the JK, but if you perform badly at the JK you get fewer points than you would have done otherwise...

[binman]

Someone told me of an unwritten rule on a web forum which went along the lines of, you know you've won the argument when the other person resorts to comparisons with Hitler.

Can we do the same but replace 'Hitler' with 'Standard Deviation'? It makes my brain hurt just reading the words.

[DeerTick]

To say that, actually, it does. The weightings are..
Level A, B, and C weight =1
Level D weight = 0

Nice one, Graeme.

AP

[Mrs H]

We could always just have a really big race and then the person who wins it gets ranked number 1 and the second person number 2 etc....
.....or would that not be fair?

[RS]

Who cares anymore

[awk]

Who cares anymore

Exactly.

[EddieH]

Most anomolies have been ironed out or a explicable in small or mixed fields, but Colin Dickson's 1310 points for 7.5min ks on blue when the brown winner in 6.4 min ks gets almost 90 points fewer is staggering. With 57 finishers it seems that this should be impossible.

Colin I know you are good, but 1310

[Spookster]

Most anomolies have been ironed out or a explicable in small or mixed fields, but Colin Dickson's 1310 points for 7.5min ks on blue when the brown winner in 6.4 min ks gets almost 90 points fewer is staggering. With 57 finishers it seems that this should be impossible.

Colin I know you are good, but 1310

At this event Colin was way ahead of everyone else on Blue, and the Blue course had a particularly good "points per mins/km" ratio (compared to Brown and Green). Stating the obvious, the system isn't perfect. Colin's got a bonus of about 100 points there.

rankings.jpg (39.58 KiB) Viewed 5161 times