Does anybody know the results of the 2004 UK Relay League or where to find them? I can't find them anywhere and I've sent emails without receving a response.
I believe my club, SLOW, came 3rd in the Women's, but it would be nice to see the results.
UK Relay League 2004 - results
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
37 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Results for 2004, whilst not found anywhere on the WWW, are below:
MEN
1 OD A 72
2 SYO A 67
3 FVO A 57
4 SHUOC A 54
5 CLYDE A 47
6 EUOC A 46
7 GRAMAR 42
8 BOK A 42
9 WAROC 31
10 INT A 30
11 SYO B 29
12 HH 25
13 SOC 19
14 SLOW 16
15 BAOC 15
16 CLYDE B 15
17 INT B 15
18 OD B 14
19 SHUOC B 13
=20 MODUM 12
=20 CROC 12
=20 FVO B 12
=23 NTNUI A 11
=23 SN A 11
25 CLYDE C 10
26 WAOC 9
27 SWOC 9
28 NOC 9
=29 SN B 8
=29 FVO C 8
31 SYO C 7
32 MFK 6
33 BOK B 6
34 NWOC 5
35 ESOC 5
36 SARUM 4
37 EPOC 3
38 HOC 2
39 NATO 1
WOMEN
1 SYO A 68
2 INT A 60
3 SLOW 48
4 FVO 47
5 EUOC 45
6 NOC 42
7 SO 41
8 SHUOC A 30
9 BOK A 27
10 OD 20
=11 SOC 18
=11 LOK 18
13 HH 16
=14 EBOR 15
=14 HOC 15
=14 CLYDE 15
=17 ERYRI 13
=17 SHUOC B 13
19 BAOC 12
20 OUOC 11
21 SYO B 10
=22 WAOC 9
=22 SARUM 9
24 SOS 8
Where teams are level on points the highest single race score determines the overall result. If teams can still not be seperated they are given a joint position.
So in answer to your question, yes, SLOW women were 3rd this year.
MEN
1 OD A 72
2 SYO A 67
3 FVO A 57
4 SHUOC A 54
5 CLYDE A 47
6 EUOC A 46
7 GRAMAR 42
8 BOK A 42
9 WAROC 31
10 INT A 30
11 SYO B 29
12 HH 25
13 SOC 19
14 SLOW 16
15 BAOC 15
16 CLYDE B 15
17 INT B 15
18 OD B 14
19 SHUOC B 13
=20 MODUM 12
=20 CROC 12
=20 FVO B 12
=23 NTNUI A 11
=23 SN A 11
25 CLYDE C 10
26 WAOC 9
27 SWOC 9
28 NOC 9
=29 SN B 8
=29 FVO C 8
31 SYO C 7
32 MFK 6
33 BOK B 6
34 NWOC 5
35 ESOC 5
36 SARUM 4
37 EPOC 3
38 HOC 2
39 NATO 1
WOMEN
1 SYO A 68
2 INT A 60
3 SLOW 48
4 FVO 47
5 EUOC 45
6 NOC 42
7 SO 41
8 SHUOC A 30
9 BOK A 27
10 OD 20
=11 SOC 18
=11 LOK 18
13 HH 16
=14 EBOR 15
=14 HOC 15
=14 CLYDE 15
=17 ERYRI 13
=17 SHUOC B 13
19 BAOC 12
20 OUOC 11
21 SYO B 10
=22 WAOC 9
=22 SARUM 9
24 SOS 8
Where teams are level on points the highest single race score determines the overall result. If teams can still not be seperated they are given a joint position.
So in answer to your question, yes, SLOW women were 3rd this year.
The reward of a thing well done is to have done it.
-
Supersaint - team nopesport
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 3:45 pm
- Location: Burley, Leeds
Supersaint wrote:Results for 2004, whilst not found anywhere on the WWW, are below:
WOMEN
1 SYO A 68
2 INT A 60
3 SLOW 48
4 FVO 47
5 EUOC 45
6 NOC 42
7 SO 41
8 SHUOC A 30
9 BOK A 27
10 OD 20
So in answer to your question, yes, SLOW women were 3rd this year.
That's what happens when the results aren't on the WWW anywhere!
In fact FVO were third in the women's UKRL this year - EUOC won the Scottish Relays but were noncomp in that race for UKRL as Alison O'Neil had already run for NOC at the British Relays.
So it should be
1 SYO A 70
2 INT A 62
3 FVO 50
4 SLOW 48
5 NOC 42
6 SO 41
7 CLYDE 31
8 SHUOC A 30
9 BOK A 29
10 EUOC 20
11 OD 20
etc
So in answer to your question, no, SLOW women weren't 3rd this year. Sorry!
- Jon X
- green
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:20 pm
- Location: should be out training
hang on a minute, does anyone have the actual rules on this?
because, if alison was competitive for euoc at soc and non-comp for noc at boc, then the original results stand! what dictates which race she was competitive in? had she been asked before the season i expect she would have said noc, but in hindsight the better team to be in is euoc!
your claim the fvo finished third relies on either:
a) the rules saying that it is the first club represented which will be competitive
or b) alison having made it clear to the co-ordinator that she wanted noc to be her competitive club.
(im basically just nit-picking because its better than working! we all know its water under the bridge and next year euoc will blow everyone away... but maybe its a little early to start that discussion! )
because, if alison was competitive for euoc at soc and non-comp for noc at boc, then the original results stand! what dictates which race she was competitive in? had she been asked before the season i expect she would have said noc, but in hindsight the better team to be in is euoc!
your claim the fvo finished third relies on either:
a) the rules saying that it is the first club represented which will be competitive
or b) alison having made it clear to the co-ordinator that she wanted noc to be her competitive club.
(im basically just nit-picking because its better than working! we all know its water under the bridge and next year euoc will blow everyone away... but maybe its a little early to start that discussion! )
-
rocky - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:28 pm
- Location: SW
Rocky wrote:because, if alison was competitive for euoc at soc and non-comp for noc at boc, then the original results stand!
But what about the JK - who did she run for there??
-
distracted - addict
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:15 am
The UK Relay League rules on who can run for are different from BOF rules.
As juniorkyle says the first club you run for is the club you are competive for as far as the UK Relay League is concerned. There's no option of telling anyone your competive club is different (unless, presumably, you declare the team non-comp to the organisers of the first competition - which would defeat the purpose of running for them in the first place).
This means the Jon X is quite correct to say the EUOC are non-comp for UK relay league points at the Scottish Champs but at the same time are still competitive under BOF rules for the Scottish Champs competition.
How do I know all this? Well back in 1998 Interlopers won the Harvester in East Anglia but scored zero UK Cup points as Gordon Riemersma had already run for EUOC. We took the decision that we'd rather go out and try and win the Harvester than score UK relay league points with a weaker team. Ironically EUOC managed to mispunch at the JK and Scottish so Gordon didn't score any UK relay league points for EUOC either!
Would be good if the rules could be published somewhere so people are aware of them.
As juniorkyle says the first club you run for is the club you are competive for as far as the UK Relay League is concerned. There's no option of telling anyone your competive club is different (unless, presumably, you declare the team non-comp to the organisers of the first competition - which would defeat the purpose of running for them in the first place).
This means the Jon X is quite correct to say the EUOC are non-comp for UK relay league points at the Scottish Champs but at the same time are still competitive under BOF rules for the Scottish Champs competition.
How do I know all this? Well back in 1998 Interlopers won the Harvester in East Anglia but scored zero UK Cup points as Gordon Riemersma had already run for EUOC. We took the decision that we'd rather go out and try and win the Harvester than score UK relay league points with a weaker team. Ironically EUOC managed to mispunch at the JK and Scottish so Gordon didn't score any UK relay league points for EUOC either!
Would be good if the rules could be published somewhere so people are aware of them.
-
Godders - blue
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:37 pm
- Location: Swanston
would be good to have a website for the competition full stop.
This competition is (imo) meant to be to try and big up the relays in the UK (along the lines of the nordic 4 i presume) but gets little or no recognition from most folk, it could do with being given much wider coverage, maybe at least somewhere where results could be found!, and then perhaps people would actually show more enthusiasm for relays as a whole.
This competition is (imo) meant to be to try and big up the relays in the UK (along the lines of the nordic 4 i presume) but gets little or no recognition from most folk, it could do with being given much wider coverage, maybe at least somewhere where results could be found!, and then perhaps people would actually show more enthusiasm for relays as a whole.
“Success is 99% failure� -- Soichiro Honda
-
brooner - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 3931
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Sydney
brooner wrote:would be good to have a website for the competition full stop.
Does this mean you are volunteering?
Does anyone know anywhere where the rules have appeared? (i.e. Focus, some obscure website, only ever presented to some BOF technical group...)
Am I right in saying that it is best three results from JK, British, Harvester and Scottish to count? (that was the events list in 2002 - I could find results from then)
Points are 25, 22, 20, 18, 16, 15, 14, ...
Then the rest of the rules, I assume, are concerning eligbility? (the neighbouring club rule is on the BOF website, so at least that is clear).
-
Simon - brown
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 7:40 pm
- Location: here or there
Godders wrote:Ironically EUOC managed to mispunch at the JK and Scottish so Gordon didn't score any UK relay league points for EUOC either!
I think you're being harsh on the rest of EUOC ....
wasn't that the year when I managed to mispunch at the JK and the Scottish.
Hasn't happened since (I think), but I finish every relay rather nervous.
Fish
- fish
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:31 pm
Murray's comment's a little cheeky given that I told him we'd be non-comp when he entered the teams for the Scottish relays! Course being the money-grabbing defector that I am, will be turning over to the dark side this year...
Alison.
Alison.
- Q
- orange
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: Edinburgh/Nottingham
Euch Murray! How can you say EUOC is the better team to be in? NOC only competed in The British and JK relays and beat EUOC in both, all this pish about how well EUOC would have done with Alison in the team is stupid. Who's to say the times people ran would have been the same in a completely different scenario?
eg. at the JK if we'd had Rose Hod who ran the same course 5 mins quicker than Liz Day (but in an adhoc team) we'd have beaten interlopers but we didn't and never would have picked Rose over Liz at that juncture anyway, so we can't say that, maybe i wouldn't have run such a good last leg if i'd been in a more pressure situation, same with mhairi at the JamesBond relay, you don't know what would have happened, except that what did happen was we beat you. so nah nah nah
Just as Alison didn't run for EUOC given the choice because NOC have been supporting us all for years and in the Women's relay we've worked our way up. -Now as she says she's being blackmailed into running for EUOC due to funding issues. That's fair enough but don't belittle NOC's performances in our last year by saying EUOC are the better team. that's just silly. We beat them at the British with kids (hehe) *Rose who did 2nd leg is only 17.
Now if you're comparing EUOC with ShUOC...
eg. at the JK if we'd had Rose Hod who ran the same course 5 mins quicker than Liz Day (but in an adhoc team) we'd have beaten interlopers but we didn't and never would have picked Rose over Liz at that juncture anyway, so we can't say that, maybe i wouldn't have run such a good last leg if i'd been in a more pressure situation, same with mhairi at the JamesBond relay, you don't know what would have happened, except that what did happen was we beat you. so nah nah nah
Just as Alison didn't run for EUOC given the choice because NOC have been supporting us all for years and in the Women's relay we've worked our way up. -Now as she says she's being blackmailed into running for EUOC due to funding issues. That's fair enough but don't belittle NOC's performances in our last year by saying EUOC are the better team. that's just silly. We beat them at the British with kids (hehe) *Rose who did 2nd leg is only 17.
Now if you're comparing EUOC with ShUOC...
-
harry - addict
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:18 pm
- Location: Halden
37 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests