SOL 4 Rogie

[Spookster]

Am on the way home from a great event at Rogie today. Weather was fine, terrain superb, and the planning on course 13 was generally also good. However, there were several instances of controls placed very close together, one of which caught me out so I mis-punched.

Control 170 (on a rock cluster) was about 20-25 metres away from control 184 (on a crag, that had an adjacent rock cluster). BOF rules say controls should be at least 30m apart, and 60m apart if on similar features. With so many great control features available in Rogie, I don't see why it was necessary to put some so close together. Hopefully not because Eddie was trying to catch competitors out.

Anyway, it's my fault I didn't check the codes carefully enough.

[Jethro]

Great event, tough area, well planned and good weather (there had been snow at home while I was away!)
Was it worth the 530 mile round trip and the 10 hours of driving?
Yes, if only for the 58s that I beat Donald by!!!

[EddieH]

I am devastated that you should be disqualified. Of course I don't want that to happen to anyone, and I can see that this is a debatable point. My controller and I are fully aware of the rules, not reading them to quote, but that should controls be placed within 30m the planner should be able to give a good reason. There was an instance nto so far away, where my controller considered 2 controls too close and my reason inadequate, so one went. This particular pair of cntrols we did discuss and they stood. The reason I wanted 2 there was that they were being approached from exactly opposite directions, and for a variety of reasons I needed them on that hill.

I generally consider that if the controls are far enough apart to be clearly circled on different features, clearly distinct features on the ground, properly described, and that neither is visible from the other. I am really sorry that you considered the second of these 2 not the case here - I saw a boulderfield in a reentrant as totally dissimilar to the foot of a 3m crag. However in your case you had the description Boulderfield edge and I can see your point that you could have ignored the cliff it was at the foot of, and that it wasn't in a reentrant because it could have seemed to fit. In hindsight I could have sent you on to the next crag, but you can see that the next leg would have become even more parallel to an earlier one, and that you would have dog-legged it.

Planning is always about compromises.

[Becks]

Rogie yesterday was absolutely wonderful. Fantastic area, brilliant planning, with everything you'd want from a classic race, and some great competition on W21L. Scorching.

[Gross]

Looking at the results it seems there were only 2 finishers on M21L & 6 on W21L (of which 2 were W40).

[Patrick]

Looking at the results it seems there were only 2 finishers on M21L...

The two butterfly loops are treated as separate classes - M21LA and M21LB - so there are 7 finishers on M21L (though I'm not sure why there's such an imbalance of runners between the A and B loops). I assume the results will be combined into one class at some point.

I'd like to echo the compliments about the course planning. I've rarely had to maintain concentration for so much of the course in a British forest. Many thanks, Eddie.

Patrick

[EddieH]

Goodnes Paul (M50) I thought that I had given scope only for 2 tiny relaxations on a bit of road/track in the whole course. There is no accounting for the desire of some to take a road route! It seems to me that you lost your concentration immediately after it.

[Paul Frost]

Even though I had a major blip at 17 I still enjoyed the course, so thank you Eddie.

On your comment about my lack of concentration after my path run:
I decided to to take the path option to 1 to ensure that I didn't get off to a bad start after all the talk of how complex and technical the area was. Looking at the splits for that leg I don't think I lost much time compared to others of a similar ability, and I started off more confidently.

The second time on the way to 8, I chose it to give me a chance to switch off for a while, and given the marsh to cross I thought it might even be quicker for me. I am puzzled that you thought I lost concentration after, as I chose to leave the path early to avoid having to go through the light green section below the control. I admit to getting confused on the way to 9, and decided to go towards the road to establish my position.

Perhaps if I had had another path run to rest my brain I might not have messed up 17!

I accept that I am never going to be quick over the long course for physical reasons, but I still enjoy myself, and I think that is important.

[greywolf]

Excellent event, great area, but amazingly hard, can't believe there will be another event this year where only 1 competitor (leaving aside the younger juniors) breaks 60 mins and only 1 more is sub-65 (not a criticism, just commenting...)

unfortunately I was a complete muppet and became one of many dsqs, and have therefore resolved to:

a) find some more technical terrain for training
b) do the short course next time Eddie is planning...

[Doug T]

i thought it was a great event aswell. i enjoyed the 21L course, it was great just to be running through such great terrain and the 89 minutes flew past.

no real critisisims( crap spelling? ) but i thought that the run in could have been stretched, or an extra control added, to bring the finish into the assembly field. just personal oppinion that whenever possible the finish should be in assembly to create a bit of atmosphere.

otherwise spot on.

[EddieH]

No Greywolf, I stand by my course lengths as being pretty well bang on BOF guideline lengths (if not a tad short). The M21L stars that I talked to thought that it was just right, i.e. the BEST British orienteer would have done 75 minutes. All other courses were within 100m of the correct length in proportion as laid down by BOF.

I am delighte by how many people came up to me to thank me for not short changing them. I also predicted some complaints about the lengths caused by 2 reasons.

1 people are used to getting courses planned significantly shorter than the guidelines, and

2 the guidelines do not take into account that the difference in speed between the elite and less fit people is far greater in rougher more technical forets than in say a southern beechwood.

Thus for me BOC M50 last year seemed far too short (though it wasn't) whereas here M50 seeed fine to me.

Rogie is probably about as extreme as it gets because it is unrelentingly technical, gives virtually no path runs, is very runnable for the superfit, but rough for the unfit.

The real concern with the lengths comes with the oldest competitors. The difference between W70L and S is just a 600m reduction from 3,6km. ALL the oldest competitors had times or around 3 hours or more, (or retired). Few people at all on the 3.6 or 3.0k courses got under 2hours, and even then not by much.

I stand by my lengths according to the rules, but would suggest that we need a short veterans class open to all, planned to a winnng time for say Mrs H, (I'm not trying to make you old - it's just that you are well known,) instead of a proportion of M21L.

[Mrs H]

Mrs H, (I'm not trying to make you old).

Well actually Eddie - I'm feeling pretty old today
glad your event went well.

[EddieH]

I am sorry abot your weather, but next time look at the SOL dates and go elsewhere!

[Julie Valighton]

My concern is that some planners, when trying too hard to defend their stance on winning times and guidelines, forget that it has such a severe detrimental effect on an "average" orienteer.
I feel that almost 100% of orienteers that were at that event could NOT be described as "unfit", however I believe that most found it very rough and too long and I feel that the high DSQ rate could have been down to this rather than the technicality. It would be interesting to know how many people retired rather than were DSQ for mispunching as the results from EMIT appeared not to make this distinction.

I feel that our course could have been shortened by 1Km to reflect the terrain. Guidelines are just that: guides and not rules. I loved the technical aspect, and I felt that the time flew by as I could not rest my brain for even a second, so I think that the course was planned superb-ly , but I wonder if on my course (12) we could have went from 8 to 11 making it slightly over 1K shorter.

[awk]

however I believe that most found it very rough and too long ....Guidelines are just that: guides and not rules... but I wonder if on my course (12) we could have went from 8 to 11 making it slightly over 1K shorter.

A good example of being damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

One problem is that if you don't use the guidelines, what do you do? Because as sure as eggs are eggs, if you vary from them, somebody will say "but it wasn't long/short enough, and you didn't follow the guidelines." Once upon a time, there were expected winning times for each class, but not now. All you have is the 75 minute w/t for an elite runner on M21L, and everything scaled from it.

The reason I'm butting in on this, even though having had nothing to do with Rogie, is I've been having just that challenge planning Aire's National event at Attermire for September. We've calculated that the M21L distance should be in the region of 13.5km (at 3.5% climb), and scaled the courses accordingly. However, when you look at previous times, it's obvious that some classes will run 'long' and some run 'short' on those distances. But short/long compared to what? My estimate (60-65 mins for over-35s), but who's to say I'm right. What should the winning times be?
The answer is, I suppose, that it doesn't matter, because the distances aren't defined on expected winning times (although that's what interests most of us) but on ratio to M21L, presuming you get that right!

I also think the ratios need another look. They don't appear to account for the fact that currently going through the vets system is the first generation who have run since they were young juniors, and they generally knock the ratios completely out. You also get some very silly winning times on M35/40 because the best usuall run M21L (and M40 is often won by an M45 round here, and M50 by an M55, who is usually faster than most of the M45s on the same course.....). Makes a complete nonsense of the 5-year age bands (so let's bin them!).