Peter Palmer Relays

[Axel]

A number of items of clothiNg and O shoes were left in one of the accomodation rooms at Yardley Chase:
Dark Blue Wynnster Aquastop Jacket
Fdjeux Shoulder Bag (Grey with red cord and wording)
Adidas Swoop size seven
Asics Duomax Gel size 9/10
If anyone wishes to claim these items please contact me on 01261 26993 or apblomquist@aol.com.

Please note if not claimed within 1 week, jacket will go to charity shop and shoes, which are in good nick will go to SWJS squad to sell.

[Tatty]

Intersting ly 4 members of the SLOW team seem to be new foreign imports who were having theri first run in GB

[awk]

From an 'encouraging juniors' point of view, it would seem better to spread the prizes round as many teams as possible rather than heap all the rewards on just one or two clubs.

No it doesn't encourage at all: most juniors are far more intelligent than that, and can see exactly the nonsense involved: that was virtually the first comment I heard about the event from a junior! You don't fool someone into thinking they are 2nd or 3rd when they know they came lower down, and didn't really qualify for the prizes. You also demean the competition: the PPR was a much better race than this rather silly distribution of prizes suggests. Not only that: the PPR is the main race, the others subsidiary competitions within the PPR. You don't go cutting teams out of the main competition just because they did well in a sub-category.

Sorry, but this sort of thinking is bonkers. If you want to 'encourage' you give more prizes further down: e.g. top 6 teams, rather than just the top 2.

And if the Harvester does it, then they are being even more silly as well, as they're supposedly dealing with grown ups, who should know better.

[distracted]

And if the Harvester does it, then they are being even more silly as well, as they're supposedly dealing with grown ups, who should know better.

From what I remember this year at the Harvesters, it was simply the awarding of the trophies to the teams that had won them. No 2nd/3rd places to worry about.

I do agree that an effort should be made to ensure that the correct prizes are awarded to the correct teams. However, I often feel that far too much is made of these relatively little things on this forum. It seems that, apart from this minor oversight, the Peter Palmers were very well received and that people should once again be very grateful that BAOC were the only club willing to take the organisation of the event on at relatively short notice, and that they should be applauded for doing so.

[awk]

You're quite right distracted. Whilst I'd disagree that the awarding of prizes is relatively trivial, I wouldn't want it to distract from the great job that by all accounts BAOC did.

[tomtom]

Pluses
-Good technical course (I did red, leg no. 1)
-Great food, the best Ive had from a Peter Palmers before.
-Clever gaffling, I was with the leading pack of four people most of the way round and I think we all had a different gaffle.
-Good sleeping arrangements.

Minuses (although some being slightly picky)
-The volleyball, football and tug-of-war were not organised. I expected to have matches in our teams as it said in the details.
-There was no prize awarded to my MDOC team when we came 3rd in the Joan George Trophy. It said in the details that a prize will be awarded to the top 3 in each category.
-The bedrooms got very hot, but I know this probably could not have been solved.
-I don't know about anyone else but I got very confused at the spectator control. Marshalls and spectators were shouting things at me, telling me to go over styles, round fences, punch controls. I expect because I was confused by this, so would the younger aged competitors.

Overall I really enjoyed the event and the pluses definatley outnumbered the minuses.

[RogYoman]

alot of thought went into that post. I agree with everything thats written in it

[HOCOLITE]

Ref the Harvester this year I can say that as quoted in Compass Sport the fastest team on the B course was Revision avoidance but they were a junior team and were awarded the junior trophy, not both or not the B course trophy. I don't know which trophy carries the greatest status and I don't know whether there is a precedent in the Harvester. I've come across situations before where a team (person) eligible for two awards is only awarded the highest staus award. Good idea but as there is a trophy for Joan George and I don't think there is for 2nd place at PP's what is 'highest status'. If the winning team were handicap do they get both PP trophy and Handicap? Or if winning team is from a small club do they get two trophies?
I can understand the juniors disappointment at not being declared 2nd but I bet they'd rather have a trophy than be 2nd and a team they beat in the handicap get the trophy! This is a mine field and needs to be sorted and clearly stated in the rules (if it isn't)

[SJC]

Ref the Harvester this year I can say that as quoted in Compass Sport the fastest team on the B course was Revision avoidance but they were a junior team and were awarded the junior trophy, not both or not the B course trophy.

That might just be because there isn't a trophy for the B course, but at least this is clearly stated in the Harvester rules.

[D,J,J&Ms Dad]

Whether or not a team can / should win more than one trophy is a matter for the rules. Logic says that if you win it, you win it i.e. if you are a small club with a handicap team that wins the Peter Palmer then you should win all 3 trophies and well done to you!

I can also understand the point of view where you can only win one trophy and in that case they must be ranked in order of importance e.g. Peter Palmer 1st, Handicap 2nd, Small Clubs 3rd.

BUT - surely the most important point here is that, despite there being trophies for handicap and small clubs, everyone goes there to compete for the PETER PALMERS TROPHY first and foremost. That is the main competition and if you are the first team in, you must win that trophy, and if you are the second team in, you come second and so on. The other trophies are there to encourage younger teams and teams from small clubs to compete.
If OD had come first in the Peter Palmer with a handicap team they would surely have won the Peter Palmer Trophy (whether or not they also won the handicap is a different issue as mentioned above). As OD came second in the Peter Palmer then they should be second. I am sorry for SLOW, but they should be 3rd.
The SLOW team should keep whatever goodies they were presented with on the day, but the records and reporting should show the correct result!

[awk]

Absolutely 100% agree!!!!

[Mr timE]

Can I just say that there are a full set of results up for the PPR which show OD in 2nd place and SLOW as third. There is also a seperate set of results showing each team in their respective category. Each team has to go into one or other category, on the night we had a fourth category for those in more than one category and then we put them into their favoured category at the end. I don't see the need to duplicate teams in all categories, that is why you have the all teams set of results.

A discussion was held before the competition started on how the prizes should be awarded and it was agreed that a team would only win one prize, based on priority. OD actually elected to take the JG trophy as there is a plate for that which will bear their name forever, there is no trophy for second place. At one stage late in the race SARUM were leading and would therefore have won all 3 trophies, despite what purist might say I don't think one team should scope all the awards, Sarum would have taken the PPR and the JG & Norwich would have gone to the next team s down. SARUM and everyone else would have known they were first in all 3, but it is much better for other teams to be able to go away and display trophies in their press reports as well and spread the message on orienteering, we are desperately short of junior orienteers and anything we can do encourage others is to be recommended. As it was 6 teams went away with prizes and certificates and everyone got a sticker.

Yes it did say there would be prizes for the first 3 teams, but we were let down on some free kit and only having charged £6 a head, which included meals, there was not enough in the kitty to buy more presents at the last moment, as it was we only had enough to cover the first 2 teams.

I would agree that something needs to be written into the rules on this, as well as the definition on small clubs and when that applies from, under the new membership system only 3 clubs are eligible as small.

[D,J,J&Ms Dad]

OD actually elected to take the JG trophy

I am sorry but that is not correct. The OD team captain realised that her teams were not showing as handicap on the early results and informed the operator in the results tent. There was no suggestion that it was a one or other situation. OD were there to challenge for the PPJTR trophy and came in less than 3 minutes behind the leaders. If it wasn't for Aire's 'secret' weapon on the Yellow who knows what might have happened! The Joan George is good to win, and we are pleased we won it, but the PP is what everyone goes for, and I still believe that the positions on this should be in order of finishing on the night irrespective of eligibility for one of the subsidiary trophies.

I make no judgement whatsoever about whether one team should win more than one trophy or not. That is something for a suitable committee of the great and the good. There are good arguements on both sides.

Finally though, I applaud the organisers for a wonderful job in a good area at a very reasonable cost. How a normal regional club is going to follow that I don't know.

[awk]

I know I'm being pedantic, but I regard this as really important:

Can I just say that there are a full set of results up for the PPR which show OD in 2nd place and SLOW as third.

Yes, but not for the PPT, which is open to ALL clubs, with or without handicap.

there is also a seperate set of results showing each team in their respective category. Each team has to go into one or other category

Why do clubs have to go into only one category? I reiterate: the PPT does not exclude any club team. Both JGT and NOR trophies are later add-ons, not instead of.

on the night we had a fourth category for those in more than one category and then we put them into their favoured category at the end.

There is one main race (the PPT), with 2 other trophies within the main competition. What was the point of a 4th category?

I don't see the need to duplicate teams in all categories, that is why you have the all teams set of results.

But that means you've produced 4 sets of results: just produce one main one with all the clubs (PPT), and then 2 others. So what if the 2 smaller ones duplicate a bit, that's inevitable if they are races within a main race.

A discussion was held before the competition started on how the prizes should be awarded and it was agreed that a team would only win one prize, based on priority.

Just as well I wasn't TMing the Aire team this year, as in previous years, presuming you discussed it with the TMs!

OD actually elected to take the JG trophy as there is a plate for that which will bear their name forever, there is no trophy for second place.

that now appears to be disputed, and anyway they should have had both.

At one stage late in the race SARUM were leading and would therefore have won all 3 trophies, despite what purist might say I don't think one team should scope all the awards.

And I disagree 100%: unlike D,J,J&Ms Dad, I'm quite prepared to offer a judgement on this! If a small club running a handicap team manages to beat all the rest, then they thoroughly deserve to win all three, and the rest of us have to buck our ideas up. Anyway, there should be awards for 2nd, 3rd and even lower to compensate.

SARUM and everyone else would have known they were first in all 3, but it is much better for other teams to be able to go away and display trophies in their press reports as well and spread the message on orienteering, we are desperately short of junior orienteers and anything we can do encourage others is to be recommended. As it was 6 teams went away with prizes and certificates and everyone got a sticker.

Well done on the certificates etc: they looked really smart. But just imagine the report: "Yes, well we won the trophy, but we didn't really win, the winning team wasn't allowed to win because they won another apparently more important trophy" Total ridicule. If you want to encourage juniors, have more on the podium in their own right, don't give them second hand trophies that they know they didn't really win.

I would agree that something needs to be written into the rules on this, as well as the definition on small clubs and when that applies from, under the new membership system only 3 clubs are eligible as small.

I wrote a definition for what constitutes a PPR small club some 4 years or so ago when English Development Officer, and we used it for at least the next year or two: basically we took the BOF junior membership for each club as of June 1st. The 20 largest clubs were then defined as large clubs, all others as small clubs. It worked well, and could still work under the new scheme. It certainly produced a vastly different set of small clubs than the usual CSC-based definition, but a better reflection of junior club strength (which might well have resolved the problem of a 'small' club winning the PPT and other awards!).

I don't want to detract from what sounds like a great competition and superb organisation, but this is important: orienteering hasn't got a great track record on prizes, and we need both the presentations and historical record to do justice to the clubs and individual competitors concerned.

[SJC]

I don't want to detract from what sounds like a great competition and superb organisation

preceded by fifty or sixty lines of pedantic nit-picking. No wonder it is so difficult to get poeple to organise events nowadays.