WOC in the future

[Mrs H]

Very many man hours have been spent at IOF/SOFT/BOF level in trying to alleviate this problem but, with events as large as these, the constraints are such that room for manoeuvre is distinctly limited and the 24 hour shift of the WMOC programme was the best which could be achieved.

You make it all sound so reasonable - but it just seems to me that the IOF have not done their job properly in the first place. They presumably grant permission in the first place - did they forget to check the dates on the submission - if they had they wouldnt have to spend many hours round the table trying to patch things up

oh snap awk

[denbydale]

[/quote]
Surely, but surely, the dates were identified before the countries were granted the races?

Even if they weren't, and if they were it can only be described as unbelievably negligent, one should not need a formally written 'policy' to enact what in the real world can only be described as blindingly obvious common sense.[/quote]


'Blindingly obvious common sense' does not seem to be one of the IOF's strong points!

[DJM]

The WMOC bid was accepted at a time when WOC dates were unconfirmed (still unconfirmed from the point of view of the WOC 2015 website). The whole issue has been complicated by the change in the WOC programme for 2014 onwards and the need for the General Assembly to ratify the changes. Since the GA meets every two years, it is no wonder that we have all been working in the dark with respect to dates.

'Blindingly obvious common sense'

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It was not "blindingly obvious" last year.

except that it won't, because WOC is scheduled to start on the Saturday...

I should have emphasised WOC Final in my post!

[greywolf]

except that it won't, because WOC is scheduled to start on the Saturday...

I should have emphasised WOC Final in my post!

er... what difference would that make? you do know that IOF have abolished qualification races for everything but the individual sprint?

[Big Jon]

Is not WOC is the most prestigious event in the IOF calendar? Or is the money spinner (for IOF) WMOC more important now? I'm sure the Olympics will love IOF clashing WOC and WMOC - shows real support for the elite and a desire to focus the orienteering world on WOC.......

[Domhnull Mor]

Are the WMOC dates finally decided? The website still refers to them as being preliminary although the tie-in with the O-Ringen makes it likely they'll stay the same. As far as bringing the dates forward, I would guess they need to avoid a clash with the Gothia Cup (youth football tournament) which is a lot bigger then any orienteering event.

.... This year the oringen is in the arctic circle - a lot of people won't be going because it is too hard/expensive to get to. Next year is 2014 is a special oringen I think - possibly 40th anniversary - so a lot of people might go (I plan to) which means they might want a to try something like a 'special' S6D the year after. It's all going to come down to marketing I reckon

Next year's is the 50th O-ringen but this year's is attracting a lot of interest. We've already had entries from over 500 Swiss. Although very close, the events are not actually within the arctic circle. As to it being hard to get to, I can't really agree with that. If you fly to Luleå it's actually easier and faster to get to Boden than to many previous O-ringens and a lot easier than getting to Sälen. The expense can also be argued about (especially if you're talking Ryanair for getting to Sweden) but there are a number of reasonable options available.

[Freefall]

Not only orienteering suffers (or benefits) by the desire to become an Olympic Sport https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climbing-in-th ... r-stronger Comments on this thread could equally apply to orienteering. Maybe we are "Shorter - Faster-Not So Technical"

I am competing in the "IOF Masters" golf next week with President, Vice-President and Sports Director of the IOF and will make my views on the WMOC/WOC/S6D clash very clear.

[Glucosamine]

I guess the slow play penalty from Augusta is an appropriate metaphor for the issue in question, but I'm not sure how to relate Tiger's dodgy drop after playing into the water ... though a possible 'run-or-swim' route choice at today's Level D event might just do.

[Spookster]

The "future" is nearly here.

Latest update on the IOF "WOC in the Future" project is the publication of the presentation made to the Presidents' Conference and the outcome of IOF Council's decisions last week, and allocation of Middle and Lonf Final places for WOC 2014 based on the results of WOC 2012 and 2013.

As expected, GBR Women are Division 1 (3 slots in Middle and Long Finals) and GBR Men are Division 2 (2 slots in each final).

While the initial divisions set-up has been based on two previous years' worth of results, future promotions and relegations were to be based on only the last (one) year. In other words, start slots at WOC 2015 would have been determined only by WOC 2014 results. However, this has been changed in the final proposal agreed by Council, such that it will be two years worth of results that are used for the annual promotion/relegation process.

As hosts of WOC 2015, GBR gets 3 slots (at least) anyway, regardless of WOC 2014 results.

[afterthought]

GBR: Women = Division 1, Men = Division 2.

For anyone interested, points calculations can currently be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/26dphsdlq0jy8rx/WOC%20in%20the%20future.pdf

GBR making the top 8 Women's nations was quite close. At the recent champs take away any of the GBR athletes (one of whom was not at all well for the qualifier) in Middle and Long, and Lithuania would have taken the guaranteed 3 places.

In the Men's, by contrast, it is not close. For example either winning or being DSQ in the relay (with its double points) would not have changed the outcome.

My understanding is that after 2014 the lowest scoring of Division 1 will be relegated, to be replaced by the highest scoring of Division 2. So there may be only two Finnish men running each of long and middle in Scotland.

[AndyC]

That coud be seen as unfair if a number of Division one teams do very badly with all their three placing lowly and a number of division 2 teams getting both their runners ranking higher

[Spookster]

My understanding is that after 2014 the lowest scoring of Division 1 will be relegated, to be replaced by the highest scoring of Division 2. So there may be only two Finnish men running each of long and middle in Scotland.

That's true, there is automatic exchange of the lowest Div 1 with the highest Div 2 nation.

However, the model also says:
If a country outside the automatically promoted group outscores a country outside the automatically relegated group – despite having fewer runners to earn points (e.g. if the 2nd highest-scoring country in Division 2 outscores the 2nd lowest-scoring country in Division 1) – those countries would also exchange divisions.

[AndyC]

That covers the issue I think -only difficult if the worst Div 1 country are much better than the best Div 2 but I suspect that there are weasel words somewhere that can make that fairer in practice

[greywolf]

is there still a limit of 7M+7W athletes per nation?

and as per earlier in the thread, is there still a clash of dates between WOC and WMOC in 2015?

[Tatty]

7 athletes per nation needs reviewing. This decision was before Sprint was introduced. This year by the time 3 each had been selected for Long & Sprint (it was difficult to do both because of timetabling issues, left only 1 space for a Middle distance runner which requires different techniques. It needs reviewing before 2014 when an extra race - Mixed sprint Relay is introduced.