Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: Ineligibility

in: undy; undy > 2016-09-04

Sep 4, 2016 9:55 PM # 
Do I need to lodge a protest?
Sep 4, 2016 10:01 PM # 
ML Rule#7 - "To be eligible to compete in a semi-final or final, a member must have run in at least two MetrO League rounds that year."
Sep 4, 2016 10:10 PM # 
Yes, from what I can see Aidan and Ross have only run in ML round each this year including lower divisions. I'm happy to have an informal chat with Ian first if you want.
Sep 4, 2016 10:29 PM # 
Given we didn't pick Mark over Bart because of the same rule...

I think rather than lodge a protest, you should confirm with Ian that Big Foot won because of the two ineligible runners. If that fails then protest. Bring on the CAS.
Sep 4, 2016 11:57 PM # 
Apparently, there was no final so this was just another round of ML and Rule#7 is redundant. GoAnnas finished on 9 points and Big Foot 1 8 points.
Sep 5, 2016 3:34 AM # 
Aha - so we lost because of that stacked Uringa team ?

I feel so much better.
Sep 5, 2016 3:34 AM # 
What a crock.
Sep 5, 2016 10:01 AM # 
Bit of a farce, but didn't BigFoot agree to allowing Uringa that stacked team? Or is that a myth? Not good for the Metro reputation how it's panned out.
Sep 5, 2016 10:33 AM # 
Nobody on the team did, but Miles may have done - Maggie Jones was laughing about it at the time, how they had stitched us up. The fact that pick-ups count in the scoring is plain dumb.

I will have my revenge bwahahahaha
Sep 5, 2016 9:44 PM # 
Yes I agreed as it is technically within the rules to have substitutes from other clubs (they do not have to be from a Sydney club). This is encouraged at every event.
Sep 5, 2016 10:08 PM # 
Also we were confident of making the final only to find there wasn't one!
Sep 5, 2016 11:12 PM # 
Yep, we could have made a bigger stink about the Uringins, but everyone thought that there was a final.

It's not Milo's job to ensure fairness in the selection (including addition of external runners), it is explicitly the co-ordinater's - see the rules, where he usurped all power from the event organiser.
Sep 6, 2016 1:34 AM # 
Metroleague boycott in 2017?
Sep 6, 2016 3:43 AM # 
Weren't we going to boycott the Sprint Series this year? Should we just disaffiliate? It is patently ridiculous when 3 passing elites can be drafted into an opposing team when we are organising an event.
Sep 6, 2016 7:01 AM # 
It was 3 was it ? No wonder I was so crankypants.

Well according to the current interpretation of the rules, we can just turn up and run for anyone else anyway.

I'll draft a couple of rule-change proposals and if they don't get up, suggest that we don't bother with div 1 next year and just go and pick-up randomly.
Sep 6, 2016 7:45 AM # 
Yes - Shep, Jo and Lorenzo.
Sep 6, 2016 9:56 AM # 
I'm impressed that there is an interclub competition in Australia that people care enough about to have an extended AP discussion thread about it. Don't think it would happen in any other state.
Sep 6, 2016 9:58 AM # 
I reckon Div 1 should just go same rules as NOL, best 3 runners count to form a combined time
Sep 6, 2016 11:02 AM # 
Sorry undy! I feel pretty bad about this - to be honest we just wanted a race...

Disappointing you didn't come up with a Uringins equivalent for Garingal last weekend ;) Garingin?

PS thanks for calling me an elite (without a preceding "former") O-ing.
Sep 6, 2016 11:10 AM # 
Anyone under 40 who trains is an elite from this part of the age spectrum
Sep 7, 2016 5:56 AM # 
@andyhill - I disagree, that would exclude even more people from meaningful participation.

To allow the smaller clubs to compete, use the XC scoring system with best N scores to count. Last year that was best 5, but it could be best 3, so that WHO have a really good chance of winning.

Everybody who finishes before the slowest Nth place across all the teams has a impact. Any ringins from outside NSW also count in the scoring, but don't score FOR any team, just against them. There is no fixed number of runners required (if you have less than N then your missing slots get number-of-competitors+1 scored.).
Sep 11, 2016 11:08 PM # 
"Given we didn't pick Mark over Bart because of the same rule... "
I thought it was because i had earnt my place by consistently scoring "1" in bush events... ;P
Sep 11, 2016 11:47 PM # 
I don't have a problem including 'extras' in teams - we need to encourage people to come and compete a especially E-lites! It is important though that extras are distributed across the teams and don't necessarily form the majority of one team.
Sep 12, 2016 12:26 AM # 
But if we have a format where "clubs" can compete against each other and the format is such that even smaller clubs can compete (ie best 3 scores count), but everyone else still counts by (possibly) pushing down the scores of other clubs, then that is inclusive of everyone in the catchment.

For runners outside the catchment, they almost certainly don't give 2c about the Metro League and just want a competitive orienteering run. The current limitation on what start time they can have is purely artificial given how few runners there are in div 1.
Sep 12, 2016 12:29 AM # 
@Bart - I've just snuck back ahead of you in the rankings...

Thinking of imposing an "at least 1 non-sprint" event restriction on the rankings - the system in the UK has broken because they include all the urban events, worried that ours will go the same way if the number of sprint events keeps rising.

This discussion thread is closed.