Because the way orienteering is currently structured, class based competition only is seen as the most important thing.
Hence the previous discussions on here about how the leagues effectively push people into running specific courses.
And I'm quite amused that my very basic suggestion to simplify things is seen as "radical"
If orienteering wants to survive and grow, it'll need some more radical suggestions that!
British Sprints
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:I hope this "exceptional circumstance" gets recorded somehow - there's a bad habit of just doing "same as last time".
Yes, it's amazing how quickly things get set in the "event details" concrete.
Obviously don't do stupid things, but just because last year's British Yyyy* did X, it doesn't mean this year's British Yyy* has to copy it.
*Not specifically referencing any particular event - just an example.
That said, things like making more major events accessible by public transport as far as possible should be strongly up the agenda. And making things simpler where possible too.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
I think you are misplacing the concern about the elite label. Its fine to have elite categories, but there probably should be some qualifying criteria - like by invitation, being in the top 3 at certain events in last 12 months, UK or World Ranking etc. What's more important is that the non-elite category isn't then treated as second rate / also ran (look at the JK's "B" "S" "V" entries...) The trend seems to be that relay legs are not all equal length - that requires some tactics from the team."Championship/Long" - elite* categories length (approx 5km legs) - everyone runs the same course (with usual gaffling) - prizes awarded to first Open, Womens, Mixed, vets as appropriate
*for marketing purposes avoid all references to the word "elite" - it's terrible for inclusivity.
If you want to be radical I don't think you need anywhere near as many combinations as you suggest!
An Elite - probably restricted to ~ 12 teams in total.
Mens, Womens, Mixed open running course reasonably similar to the Elite.
Shorter courses with entry criteria based on the combination of British Ranking points - I think that probably mashes together men/women/age/experience mix rather nicely*.
Junior courses - TD4/TD3/TD4 and TD3/TD2/TD3 probably all mixed unless the numbers dictate otherwise.
I think its nice if ad hoc teams can be accommodated so clubs no longer need to find entry numbers that divide by 3 and smaller clubs are more likely to get a few people entered, but that shouldn't be at the risk of someone engineering a team to smash everyone else.
*some special rules would be needed for those with no ranking points, but its clearly not hard to devise some.
HOWEVER, if you want to tackle relay interest then I think there's a more fundamental issue to solve. From my experience, and those of others I know who are relay hesitant the main concern is letting down the rest of your team, most likely with a mispunch. Ruining your own run with a silly mistake is embarrassing, ruining two other people's "result" is much more awkward. So for non-elite categories (or maybe anything below Men's Open) I would suggest a penalty for mispunching.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
It does seem that many of our rules / practices for age-class combination and relay classes are still based on a time when participation was 2 or 3 times the current level. And that even where they are recommendations (rather than rules) people are still reluctant to o anything different.
Relay criteria based on ranking points is interesting; it would become a handicap race with the most likely winning team not being the 'best' but the one where runners have ranking points that for some reason are lower than current form. Doesn't mean it wouldn't produce an interesting competition, with perhaps closer aggregate results.
I am sure the MMF (or MMFF) requirement for the Mixed Sprint Relay restricts the number of teams that many clubs can put together. In aggregate across the BO membership MMF may be about right, but once you break it down by club, age and enthusiasm it gets more difficult.
Simpler for club captains would be a Harvester type system based on age and gender. Somewhat akin to the 120+, 165+ classes but with more flexibility to accommodate mixed, family and other teams. They could apply across all the different relays. And if there are different length legs give the club freedom to decide who runs on what leg.
Some form of relay clearing house for putting together mixed club teams might help, particularly for weekends with an individual / relay combination. What is wrong with even a (relay) Championships allowing EOD for ad-hoc teams?
Relay criteria based on ranking points is interesting; it would become a handicap race with the most likely winning team not being the 'best' but the one where runners have ranking points that for some reason are lower than current form. Doesn't mean it wouldn't produce an interesting competition, with perhaps closer aggregate results.
I am sure the MMF (or MMFF) requirement for the Mixed Sprint Relay restricts the number of teams that many clubs can put together. In aggregate across the BO membership MMF may be about right, but once you break it down by club, age and enthusiasm it gets more difficult.
Simpler for club captains would be a Harvester type system based on age and gender. Somewhat akin to the 120+, 165+ classes but with more flexibility to accommodate mixed, family and other teams. They could apply across all the different relays. And if there are different length legs give the club freedom to decide who runs on what leg.
Some form of relay clearing house for putting together mixed club teams might help, particularly for weekends with an individual / relay combination. What is wrong with even a (relay) Championships allowing EOD for ad-hoc teams?
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: British Sprints
Relay criteria based on ranking points is interesting; it would become a handicap race with the most likely winning team not being the 'best' but the one where runners have ranking points that for some reason are lower than current form. Doesn't mean it wouldn't produce an interesting competition, with perhaps closer aggregate results.
Does the relay currently find the best team (in anything other than the elite end) or just the least worst combination of runners that a team captain can juggle together to fill their slots after the inevitable day before injuries etc. In reality though >80% of people on that start line have absolutely no expectation or hope of getting on the podium, so competitions which are structured around the small number that do are possibly part of the reason relays are less popular than individuals.
I agree you could have weird anomalies with a ranking point based handicap relay - where say a runner has had some poor O results in the last year (perhaps through injury) and then does amazingly well on the day, but it would only be obvious if that one runner's ranking and result were so out of step to affect which course length their whole team qualified for. I think for most scenarios you could probably build rules that cover them, not least of which would be the M/W16's who come with no ranking points and can outrun most of us!
I suspect historically the admin effort that comes with relays has been a big factor in trying to lockdown the teams as early as possible. It does feel like internet access is such that most venues could support some sort of self service option which automatically feeds into the on site results system. All organisers really want participants to enter early and commit - which an EOD clearing house would discourage. I think my concerns about mispunching would be even higher if I was partnered with some "random strangers". At least within my own club the club captain is likely to put me with others who don't take it too seriously.Some form of relay clearing house for putting together mixed club teams might help, particularly for weekends with an individual / relay combination. What is wrong with even a (relay) Championships allowing EOD for ad-hoc teams?
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:I hope this "exceptional circumstance" gets recorded somehow - there's a bad habit of just doing "same as last time".
Probably not in this case since the requirement for all classes running the same course to start at the same time is explicitly stated in the rules.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: British Sprints
Atomic wrote:HOWEVER, if you want to tackle relay interest then I think there's a more fundamental issue to solve. From my experience, and those of others I know who are relay hesitant the main concern is letting down the rest of your team, most likely with a mispunch. Ruining your own run with a silly mistake is embarrassing, ruining two other people's "result" is much more awkward. So for non-elite categories (or maybe anything below Men's Open) I would suggest a penalty for mispunching.
Many orienteers simply dislike relays. It is the mass starts, the competitive racing aspect, the endless waiting around in tents, the spectator run-ins and such. They prefer to go for a run on their own through a forest, preferably with a remote start and finish.
We regularly get into discussions here about how to make orienteering more appealing to people who DONT orienteer - and always what comes up is things such as mass starts, opportunities to socialise and an event buzz - exactly the things that put off many who DO orienteer.
If you change relays to make them attractive to those who avoid them then they will cease to have the pull for those who particularly enjoy them.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: British Sprints
Many orienteers simply dislike relays. It is the mass starts, the competitive racing aspect, the endless waiting around in tents, the spectator run-ins and such. They prefer to go for a run on their own through a forest, preferably with a remote start and finish.
Interesting. Is that based on data or anecdote? Pre lockdown at a club meeting we discussed what people did/didn't like about relays, big events etc. The things you mentioned were mostly positives, although it is a friendly club so waiting for handovers is not "endless waiting around" but "a chance to catch up with friends". The concern is overwhelming negative was the worry that your mispunch costs the whole team its result. I'm pretty sure at Schools races they use a time penalty for MP's and suspect something like that could remove the fear from the more social classes.
I say that as someone who really enjoys going for a run on my own, hates being spectated etc. If those issues were the problem it feels like the JK individuals, CSC, 6-days, etc would be less popular.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
Atomic wrote:The concern is overwhelming negative was the worry that your mispunch costs the whole team its result.
I never understand this. I don't think it's right take the prize from another team based around some arbitrary time deduction. But most of us aren't in contention for medals, we just run around with a bunch of other people in the woods trying to catch up or sneak ahead.
If I have a fun time the woods, why do I care whether my name is halfway down or at the bottom of the results later on?
The one thing I do want to know though is what time we took, and who I was running alongside - it is annoying if DQed teams don't have times & splits published.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: British Sprints
pete.owens wrote:If you change relays to make them attractive to those who avoid them then they will cease to have the pull for those who particularly enjoy them.
Agreed. I love relays for exactly reason that many people dislike them.
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:Atomic wrote:The concern is overwhelming negative was the worry that your mispunch costs the whole team its result.
I never understand this. I don't think it's right take the prize from another team based around some arbitrary time deduction.
I'm just sharing the feedback from a group of around a dozen adult orienteers who don't run relays about why they wouldn't want to. I'm sure the time penalties could be calculated such that there was little risk of anyone stealing a prize as a result, or anyone intentionally missing a hard control. I don't know all their O histories but most of them started as adults, and I think there may be a different perception there than those who worked up the system as juniors although I've heard similar concerns from juniors.
those are exactly the sort of people we were talking to, in a normal race they don't care too much if they MP and don't get a time, but they don't want to be responsible to the rest of the team being DQd. Its not an issue for me - if they other runners were any good the team captain would never have put them in the same team as me!But most of us aren't in contention for medals, we just run around with a bunch of other people in the woods trying to catch up or sneak ahead.
If I have a fun time the woods, why do I care whether my name is halfway down or at the bottom of the results later on?
Exactly the sort of thing that makes people perceive that DQ is a disaster.The one thing I do want to know though is what time we took, and who I was running alongside - it is annoying if DQed teams don't have times & splits published.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
Atomic wrote:Exactly the sort of thing that makes people perceive that DQ is a disaster.graeme wrote:The one thing I do want to know though is what time we took, and who I was running alongside - it is annoying if DQed teams don't have times & splits published.
There should be a way around this. How about instead of disqualifying teams for mispunches, record them as non-competitive? That way, they appear in the results with their splits, but are discounted for prize-giving purposes.
That way, there's no incentive to deliberately miss out a control; but the punishment for making a mistake would seem to be more in the spirit of participation typical of those who are put off by the threat of letting others down.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: British Sprints
Details etc are now up at https://www.britishsprintchamps.org.uk/
I believe start times are also up on Fabian
I believe start times are also up on Fabian
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:Details etc are now up at https://www.britishsprintchamps.org.uk/
Why are the M55s and 60s running on an unenlarged 1:4000 map, but the W55s and 60s are on an enlarged 1:3000? Should be the same, surely (ie both get enlarged; unlike pensions, I don't want to suggest dragging women back to the standard for men!).
The British Sprints isn't alone - quite a few other races do the same (e.g. Coventry middle-distance). It makes a massive difference.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
W55+ are on course 4.
M55 & M60 are on course 3.
As per the rules for the British Sprints.
We made the decision, Courses 1-3 1:4000. Courses 4-5 1:3000.
M55 & M60 are on course 3.
As per the rules for the British Sprints.
We made the decision, Courses 1-3 1:4000. Courses 4-5 1:3000.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests