Peter Palmer

[johnloguk]

Awk wrote;

"Eeeeee, in my day we had to navigate using a candle stuck in our hat, and that's the real way to night orienteer....."



You were lucky, we used to dream of a candle stuck in our hat...................

Sorry, couldn't resist it, old habits......

[Gnitworp]

Eeeeee, in my day we had to navigate using a candle stuck in our hat, and that's the real way to night orienteer.....

What kind of fire hazard was a naked flame in the forest?
Shame on you.

[Kitch]

None atall,

It allus used to rain thee see
and even if it di'n't we could never afford to light 'candle.
thats 'ow come it were so 'ard

[tendon]

So ...

8 teams disqualified for mispunching of which 6 had mispunches on the yellow (including 4 at one control - 68 )

11 mispunches on the yellow in total, of which 7 at control 68.

Annecdotal evidence from a small sample (1) was of the opinion that the box had beeped and flashed!

It would be interesting to see the output from Control 68 in light of the other threads regarding false negatives from SI units!

[HOCOLITE]

Tendon I was around download and there was no comment that I was aware of. Because if there was the box would have been changed. The comment was that they followed the tapes and did not punch the control(s) which were I believe on the taped route. If you look at the splits in detail you'll see a number of the MPs were running together so if one didn't they all didn't. There was no reference to box failure. I agree there appears to be a problem but there was a much larger number who did not mispunch looking at the names these are generally the more experienced competitors.

[Blanka]

Two of the mispunches were both our yellow runners (unfortunately!) who I think were running together with another yellow runner at the time, having been in the mini mass-start.

They missed the last two controls and told me they'd been to 68 but speaking to the start official it seemed like there was too little time to have been round that control before going to the finish. To be honest after that I left it at that simply because we'd have been DQ'ed anyway because of the kids not punching the last control (even if they *had* punched 68 ), which they both agreed they hadn't done.

Perhaps it was unfortunate planning of the yellow given that the finish was in sight from the 3rd control from the end. Perhaps it was unlucky that the kids were running in a pack and once one of them went wrong they all did.

[tendon]

Noted. It was a VERY small sample and cold statistics can be most misleading.

Enough said.

[NeilC]

Pleased to see that mixed club teams were allowed to enter this year (albeit non-competitively). This always seemed like a good idea but has been frowned upon in recent years.

[Tessa]

well, finally caught up with sleep and energy after a long weekend.

very glad to hear the majority of positive comments about the event, it was pingu and my first time planning anything serious and Barry did a great job of controlling our wild and stupid ideas.

I hope people found the courses interesting, there were a number of constraints we had to work round, OOB areas, gorse bushes which we thought unfair at night, adding in spectator controls (which meant the yellow course was always going to have a loop in sight of finish) and the fact many people know the park too well. Even so, Iain and I were very happy with the final courses so we hope you lot were too!

For all the hard work, effort and lack of sleep, it was really rewarding thing to do, i encourage other people to get involved in this stuff, it makes you realise how much effort goes into major events.

Big thanks must go to all the main officials who put a lot of time and effort into this, SI geniuses, commentary, white rabbits, start teams, aswell as the patrollers who were out in the park from 4am for up to 4 hours getting very bored. Thanks everyone!

[ifititches]

Tessa, it was a great event and respect and thanks again to you and Pingu (and BE) for producing courses that kept everyone on their toes right up to the end and surprised some people who thought there were no surprises to be had in Sutton Park

And thanks to COBOC (the little club with the big HEART) and all their W.Mids helpers, including the one with the long floppy ears.

re the mixed N/C teams this was certainly allowed at the PPR two years ago in Sutton Park and I applaud it, where clubs haven't got enough runners to put together a team, or have some surplus who really want to get a run. But it was great to see some clubs that haven't been there before using the competition as a development opportunity and getting a whole team out (I think the LEI coach didn't stop smiling all night!)


Oh, and Becks, i love the bit about Simon O'M; he'll be tickled pink. Let's say, "eats, runs and very occaisionally orienteers"; every family should have one!

[Tatty]

RE NC teams. When I was approached by another club captain to put a team together, as neither of us could get a team alone, she was told it was not allowed. Therefore you can imagine how we feel to discover that it was alllowed only today. We each had 3 juniors who were keen to run, and now they have missed the opportunity.

[awk]

I'm going to stick my neck out on this one, and say that I don't like mixed teams for the PPR, and was unhappy to see such a team in the results.

The PPR was reduced in size a couple of years ago to make the event more accessible for clubs. Amongst other things, this helped remove the blight of mixed teams being put together simply to provide some elite juniors with the opportunity to race at the front end, reducing the focus on the club teams. There was even the situation of one leading junior not being available for their club team because they wanted to run in a one of these teams.

The onus should be on clubs to pull teams together. The PPR is as much a vehicle for development as a major race. I don't agree with the let out that if you can't find 6 juniors, then all you have to do is combine with another similar club. I can already hear somebody say that saying that is all very well for somebody from a strong junior club, but for most of the early years of the PPR I was involved in a very small club, where we still managed to get together an 8-strong team most years by linking with local schools etc.

Major congratulations to teams like Leicester, South Wales, the very young South Ribble team and the new Barrow club who all managed to get there: an achievement in itself. I would not want to see the efforts of those clubs who did manage to get teams out diluted by the spectre of non-comp teams.

[HOCOLITE]

RE Awk and Tatty.
I think N?C mixed teams should not be discouraged if they give youngsters an opportunity but only as a last resort, unfortunately the rules have been abused in the past when junior squads have entered teams or groups of squaddies have got together to run. This years n/c team were from two clubs one of which had a comp team, but they were all male so def non comp, but they did get the opportunuity to run and may be inspired to get some more to take part next time. We have run a third team non comp in the past combined with COBOC.
I applaud the clubs who have brought the PP into part of the junior development program. The ones mentioned by AWK and don't forget BOK, they have not had a team for many years and brought two teams one which was very inexperienced. I know of juniors (now too old) in the SW who have never had the PP experience due to insufficient junior club members.
The increase in participants is a tribute to the status of the PP and the recent drive to improve junior development.

[ifititches]

My original post did include a paragraph about the sort of N/C teams mentioned by AWK, but I edited it out as I don't think they've been allowed since the one in Leicestershire about 5 years ago.

Apologies to any posters on here who had a great time running in those teams, but they completely wrecked the competition from a spectator, younger junior and club development point of view. It was not very inspiring to watch a junior relay when all the leading teams were having a private competitive battle which was nothing to do with the rest of the competition.

But genuinely there are clubs who are not far along enough in their development to get a whole team out, and I wouldn't like to see keen juniors miss out because their team management either busted a gut to try and get a team and couldn't, or didn't make much effort to get one.

HOC have turned out >/=2 teams for the last 3 years I think. We could even have made up 3 teams 3 years ago, but doubling up on the yellow legs that year meant that some COBOC boys got a run in a mixed team, which would otherwise have been HOC3. These numbers have been possible because of great junior captains, supportive parents, billing PPR as a major development/junior bonding experience, doing night O regularly at junior camps, having older juniors who regularly get to night O with their parents, and last, but not least (this year) new recruits through MADO. When I first went with HOC to PPR I think we had just one team... Just DO IT

Oh, and a very supportive club which pays the entry fees of course...

[SJC]

From the BOF web site PP Guideline:

Two 'small' clubs should not combine if they are able to field teams from their own clubs. However they may combine if the first club is able to field a team and the second club cannot. In such circumstances it is assumed that the first club will pick their best runners before seeking to combine with a neighbouring club to give their 'spare' junior orienteers the opportunity to run in a team when one cannot be formed entirely from the second club. Any attempt by the first club to do otherwise may lead to their disqualification. The spirit of the
competition is, therefore, that clubs form teams from their own members and are encouraged to develop junior club members. It is not the intention for
Regional 'elite' teams to be formed.

A bit long-winded, but seems to imply that making up a team with spare runners is ok as long as they don't have a chance of winning, which sounds fair enough to me.