Unofficial Jr. (US) Points Scoring
- feel free to comment/suggest fixes
The JWOC selection panel consists of Erin Schirm, Greg Balter, and myself. We are keeping separate spreadsheets of the scores to check against each other.
Here is a review of the JWOC selection process:
The US ranking score for JWOC selection is taken using the junior rankings, which only consider the races during the ranking period, rather than the rolling rankings. The junior rankings can be found here:
There are five petitions being considered:
Anton, David R, and Martin have petitioned because they do not have a US ranking score. At the moment, they are not needing to use their petitions.
Aidan has petitioned because he cannot attend Team Trials due to a pre-existing conflict with a very demanding orchestra program.
Brigitte has petitioned because she cannot attend Team Trials due to injury.
I am keeping my calculations of the JWOC selections here:
JWOC scoring list
Please contact me immediately if you see an error.
Sorry if I missed it, but have either the senior or junior US WOC Teams been announced?
Lots of people on Facebook talking about it so I guess so. Anyone going to publish some lists?
WOC team won't be announced (per their rules) until a week after the trials. Exception is the people with automatic spots, but I have no info about that.
Erin is supposed to be announcing the Junior Team today.
Top scorers at Senior Team Trials (automatic to Team):
Men - Morten Jorgensen, Eric Bone
Women - Alison Campbell
More detail after those of us still traveling get home. Junior Team was announced at the event but I don't have the details on that.
Ah, interesting. Like Becky, I have seen people celebrating their selections on social media and was surprised not to have seen a team announcement.
And giac! For sprint selection spot.
The full junior team, including alternates, was announced at the end of the trials. At the time of announcement, though, many of the juniors had already left, heading out to the airport or starting the long trip home.
Ah, excellent. Congratulations Alison!
Julia Doubson won the women's sprint (handily). Will she be offered the spot on the Sr. team that she earned or be denied that spot on the grounds that she only declared for the Jr team?
I think she was named to the senior team via petition, as she did not declare her intent to compete in the senior trials.
Thanks! And yes two juniors petitioned for the sprint which was good to see :) happy that was honored for Julia and looking forward to me being able to focus on the forest and get to know some more of the juniors :)
Julia qualified in her own right and doesn't need to petition, but if that's the way the committee wants to handle the declaration issue then so be it, as long as she gets the offer she earned. Which other Jr petitioned for a spot on the Sr team?
The US senior men's sprint trial was a tie. #8 to #9 was a road crossing leg, off the clock. Giacomo's total time as shown in the AP results was 18:04, minus 12 seconds for the road crossing leg is a net time of 17:52. For Morten it's 18:06 minus :14 which is also 17:52.
As I understand it, the rules don't address this situation. I won't speculate here as to possible resolutions, other than to say that I have more faith than some posters here in the ability of the selection committee to come up with a reasonable solution.
Team selection shouldn't be a matter of faith.
RouteGadget for Long also available
Hit refresh, if you don't see it.
I might better have said, I have confidence in the selection committee. I mean no distinction in that choice of words.
Does anyone have any photos from in the woods - the maps look super cool!
@Becks - posted the links to some Facebook MNOC photos of day 3 in a Photos thread on AP - though not many shots in the woods. We are happy it did not snow or drizzle.
Agreed. Looks like a great event with nice courses and good variety. Nicely done!
In my position as the Como Sprint meet director I will address the road crossing question.
The road crossing leg: the time taken for that leg is for safe road crossing and would be dependent on whatever traffic is present . The stated requirement of the competitors was that they spend that time only concentrating on crossing safely. There was a crossing monitor who was tasked with making sure that there was no resting or map studying . No runners were reported as resting or doing map study during the leg.
Some runners stopped to consult their map after punching the end of road crossing control; by the rules they had up to 1hr + to do that.
FYI : There were some runners who have been disqualified for road crossing violations later in the course. They failed to take a mandatory bridge crossing over a very busy road and took a short cut across the busy road (which was marked as out of bounds- danger and was noted in the meet notes) . There was obviously no need to give competitors running over the bridge an allowance of time for presence or absence of traffic roaring by under the bridge.
For the road crossing, while I understand you are trying to make a safer race, and may have had requirements to get permits etc, was there a rule variation approved for this? If so, good! but we should be doing a better job making any rules variations clear in the event notes. If not, then what rule allows you to remove the time between two controls, and more importantly, what rule would allow you to DQ someone for taking time to study their map at the road crossing?
I think these situations are better served by having a mandatory crossing point on the course with the road mapped as out of bounds, and if necessary, then have crossing guards to control traffic. We had two road crossings in the TT sprint last year, right out of the start, and coming into the finish. With mandatory crossing points at crosswalks, I don't think we had any issues with interference, and it was a much busier road.
It was in the course notes.
I will comment as meet director on the road crossings rule question. We had thorough discussion of this during the event meetings prior to the meet.
1) OUSA appointed course consultant and Course designer / Junior team coach Erin Schirm were consulted on this road crossing matter and agreed on the approach . The crossing point was a marked pedestrian crossing.
2) OUSA rules of competition in regard to road crossing are only this : A33.4 care shall be taken when crossing traffic routes.
3) MNOC did not wish to take on the liability of stopping traffic and directing runners when it was or was not safe to cross this or other less busy roads.
4) The delay for waiting for traffic had been observed to be as short as 0 seconds and as long as 25 seconds by a survey at same time of day ~ 3 weeks prior to meet . This random length of delay of runners had the potential to create a major unfairness issue.
5) This road was out of bounds except for the mandatory crossing point (at this an unsignalled pedestrian crossing ) and a crossing at 4 way stop on the way to start.
6) The approach taken by MNOC in regard to epunch leg timing calculations follows published approach adopted by British and other national orienteering federations in their rules of competition. In particular the event software Or (used by Orienteering Ireland ) handles the approach set out by these rules.
7) Event and course notes specifically mentioned the procedures above that would be followed. These were highlighted at the event.
It would be helpful to other OUSA clubs in future if the OUSA rules of competition were updated to reflect the current day best practices that epunch in particular have enabled in regard to road crossings and other matters.
Ian - thank you for this well-thought out approach to handling the road crossing. I'll talk to Clare Durand about having the Rules committee take a look at this. And massive more thanks to you and MNOC for holding the TT for three(!) teams: US Senior, US Junior, and Canada Senior teams. I really would have loved to attend, but from all of the reports, it sounds like it was a wonderful event. So, kudos to all of you!
Yes, OR and sportsoftware (OE2010) handle the road crossing as prescribed, but none of the post-event programs do. AP, WinSplits, and RouteGadget all leave the time in, so it can cause confusion on what the official result was.
Additionally, unless handled correctly, a road crossing can be quite a nice rest spot, and especially if a water stop is added on either side. And, that road crossing sure looks like a great place to add water, what with it being right next to the road.
I am not an OR expert, but I do know that there is nothing in sportsoftware (OE2010 currently) to automatically handle something like a 30 second, or 2 minute road crossing maximum. So, any "infractions" of taking too long at the crossing would have to be dealt with manually in the software.
Perhaps this should be a separate topic...
OR was set at 60 seconds and would have automatically handled longer than 60 seconds for the crossing leg.See OR help file.
If someone was delayed by traffic for over the 60 seconds, the crossing monitor was tasked to record that "delay by traffic" and we would have had to manually adjust . "Resters" and "Map studiers" got a verbal warning to immediately desist and bib # would have been reported if they had continued.
Water within a road crossing leg: Not a good idea for 2 reasons :1) distraction from the important competitor task of crossing road safely 2) enables further abuse via resting time issue . So put the water 30- 40 meters beyond the road crossing (easy to haul water there using the road , and does not mess up road crossing )
My suggestion is other post event programs should follow the lead of OR for this safety and fairness issue. .
I think it is fine for the other post event software to work in "real time". That allows for bunching analysis of the splits, for example, and the real time RG playback then properly reflects what happened. Perhaps an option would be nice to do it either way - but I don't see this as a big deal since it isn't used that often.
The way the organizers handed the road crossing sounds like the same way that we handled it at the Whistler COCs a few years ago when we had a tricky stream crossing. We gave everyone five minutes to cross the stream and they could do whatever they wanted in that five minutes. We did put water at the end control. It certainly had some compromises to the competition with the introduction of this new 'strategy'. But it allowed we course planners to make vastly superior courses (i.e. better orienteering and way more fun) so well worth the price.
At Como, the road crossing was totally fine. Thanks MNOC for the extensive delibrations on just that part of planning a great weekend! Wow, and thanks!
Fwiw, in other big events (e.g. JK '17 - one the UK's biggest events) I've seen this done too, and DVOA's done this time-limited voided leg for crossings in local events several times. Plenty of time to allow crossing safely, and not enough that it's a big difference between full-rest-time and just-keep-running (and stay warmed up.) In JK's case - I think this was even their Team Trials pre-selection race too.
As we consider optimizing road crossing best-practices in the future - one minor alteration to consider for future such crossings - as was used in JK - was to simply allow up to the full time to be used-for-rest (if the competitor chose) or for them to continue on. This helps avoid the hard to quantify judgement call of 'were they resting more than they should've'.
Yes, if you allow this, the competitors *could* loiter, or map study while they wait - but at least it's clearly the same time interval for everyone, and easier to be consistent.
In fullness, it should be noted that JK had a further optimization on map study - they chose to map-exchange at the road crossing - with map pickup after punching the post-road control... so people could rest up to the max. (and many did if you looked at splits - with a few even mis-judging and incurring a few second penalty ;) - but at least there was no map-study time.
The IOF rules were amended a couple of years ago to allow for untimed legs (for road crossings etc.).
Are scoring lists available for the Sr WOC trials?
While I tried to be very careful and others are checking for accuracy, if you see an error please let me know.
A comment on software handling of road crossings: MeOS has the capability to indicate that there should be no timing on a leg, by setting that in the Controls tab. It also has a feature, Minimum Leg Time, to specify that all runners should be charged at least that amount of time. This could take care of the issue of resting too long.
I haven't used either feature; I don't know how they would work in combination.
From reading the documentation, it looks like the actual time is adjusted if you use No Timing. Thus the splits output should look ok in WinSplits or RouteGadget.
Any word on Canadian team selections?
Thanks Sandy for your copy of the list. But, is Alison Campbell the only one female trying for the team?
She was the only woman in attendance who declared as competing for the WOC team, though others have petitioned to be added.
More to come when the review panel makes their selections, likely in the next few days.
@origamiguy: The "minimum leg time" is what we used at the COCs in Whistler. We set the minimum leg time at 5 minutes. Worked wonderfully well.
@JimBaker: At the risk of getting things completely wrong, my unofficial reading is that the Canadian WOC selection is something like below (I could be completely wrong). This is without any knowledge of who declared an intent to compete at WOC, which would have a big impact on the team selection, and without a very thorough read of the Selection Policy
[Edited to correct a slew of mistakes pointed out by Carlch & Feet & Ken]
* Long: Eric Kemp (top Cdn at NAOC)
* Middle: Damian (NA regional champ) + [Eric (from selection race, but can't win both Long&Middle national spots) so...] + Will (from selection race)
* Sprint: Damian (top Cdn at NAOC) + Will + Eric (from selection races)
* Relay: Damian & Eric & Will (running order tbd)
* Long: Emily Kemp (NA regional champ) + Louise (top 40 at previous WOC) + ??
* Middle: same as Long
* Sprint: Emily Kemp (top Cdn at NAOC) + ?? + ??
Oops - that should read "Top Canadian at NAOC". SOrry Greg!!
(I will edit the post)
Canada only gets one spot in the men's long, which is what carlch is pointing out.
Oops again. (I knew I shouldn't have tried this ;-)
(I'll make another edit)
I recall W said that as long as he finished, he would get the selection Middle spot (because Eric can't have Long+Middle per Selection Policy), and then they'd likely end up trading places due to their own preferences.
OMG. Did I get anything right??
Here's the selection policy, confirming Ken's comment.
(I'll make another edit)
"Men's Middle/Long: If the same man wins both National spots in the Middle and Long (using results from Preliminary and/or Final selections), then that individual will be given the choice to run one race at WOC, but not both. The vacated spot will be filled by the next fastest Canadian in the relevant Final selection race."
So, my list above is assuming that Eric chooses to run the Long. If he chooses to run the Middle, then I think things would be different
In Boris's interview of Louise at Tiomila she said she was not going to WOC this year due to teaching commitment.
The automatic selections
to the US WOC team resulting from the Team Trials last weekend were posted to the OUSA website on Wednesday. Both Giacomo and Morten are included as co-winners of the men's sprint, and Julia as winner of the women's. That makes 4 men and 2 women named to the team already. Team size is 4-6, with 6 only "under unusual circumstances" such as someone holding an IOF regional spot and not running any other races. Greg Ahlswede holds the regional spot in the Long, but chose to go to another race in Sweden (Tiomila) rather than the Team Trials, so that leaves the door open for 5+1. Four+1 is still possible depending on how the Review Panel allocates starts.
Continuing straight down the Trials scoring list
for 5+1 would add Will and Michael to the team. Note that Will scored slightly higher than Giacomo (already selected) on the overall scoring list, with solid numbers in all three races. Not sure who else out there might petition on the men's side. Ross also chose to go to Tiomila instead of the Trials (as did Sam). Others?
The women's situation is lamentable this year. Only one entry in the Trials meant no competition for spots. Full credit to Alison - not her fault no one else was there to challenge. Note that two entries would still result in no competition at the Trials, since 2 spots are automatic from the scoring list. Its great that Julia won the sprint (convincingly so) and will help the Sr team out this year.
Regarding petitions, there's a rumor (in this thread) that another junior has petitioned for a spot on the Sr women's team. Perhaps Isabel. Dunno. There are other possible petitioners out there. Unfortunately this large vacuum will probably be filled with sight-unseen petitioners - or not at all. I'd prefer the latter. I'm dreading adding the 2017 point to the Trials attendance
regression plot. A goose egg.
The major downside of The Latter is not having a Relay team => missing out on nation points => losing one starter in Women's Middle and Long. If I still understand WOC nation slots.
We're already down to one...
Indeed, but you're in a reasonable position to bounce back with a half-reasonable result - best two division 3 teams go up, and because scores from two years count, you already start with an advantage (USA will carry forward 71 points from 2016, Bulgaria 58, Ireland 41 and no-one else more than 23).
The Team Trials attendance plot
has been updated with this year's numbers.
I haven't looked into the source of the numbers, but I assume I did not count for the attendance this year, as I ran Public Blue, that being the only option since I did not list myself as a team prospect. I don't know if that was the case in the past, but I think I used to run in the team trial event itself. There may be others in the same situation, though I don't know if that would affect the numbers much.
Are the numbers just pure TT attendance? Or out of all JWOC or WOC aspiring/training athletes these are the portion that attended TT? Are you measuring a shrinkage of elite athletes over time? And this a shrink in TT attendance? Or is there a growth or flatline of elite athletes and a shrinkage of TT attendance. I feel like attendance on it's own is only a fraction of the picture
These are straight counts of the names on the published scoring lists
. I didn't eliminate or add anyone for any reason. In some years, pure petitioners (who did not attend the Trials) are included in the counts in the plot. Prior to 2015 petitioners were inserted into the scoring lists, but that is no longer done. The scoring lists from 2015 to the present are not published at the above link, but are available in various AP threads. Plot points from 2015-2017 do not include petitioners (as they are not on the scoring lists).
I should probably make a version with petitioners eliminated from all years to be consistent. In some cases prior to 2015 this would lower the numbers in the plot by one or two. It would also be interesting to see what fraction of each team was named by petition each year.
Ah okay, thank you for explaining. I was not really thinking about petitions I was just wondering what exactly the measurement was trying to demonstrate (if anything) other than pure TT attendance year over year.
It might be more interesting to see a total elite (junior and/or adult) population metric versus TT attendance. Because it seems that TT attendance would go down automatically in years when there are fewer elites overall. Perhaps a large number retired after 2014? Was that year held near a more prominent concentration of elite athletes?
I ask because it could be that relative to elite population size the discrepancies in TT attendance are not as large as the graph seems to demonstrate.
Meaning that 2 attending out of a potential 5 is very different from 2 attending out of a potential 50.
The U.S. women's team is undergoing a generation change. Alex retired from international competition; Ali and Samantha are having babies; Hannah and Kseniya are at the very least taking breaks (though both ran Team Trials races); not sure about Tori B (who also ran Team Trials races.)
The rules for being on the scoring list have changed over the graph's time period. Today, the scoring list only includes elite athletes who are truly serious about being team members and planning to accept a WOC spot if they earn it. In the past, the scoring list would include just about everyone who ran the elite course at the event, as long as they were eligible to represent the U.S. at WOC.
Hannah, Kseniya, Alex, Sam, and Ali all are retired (at least for this year; they chose not to apply to be on the standing team). Tori is still on the team but had a conflict with WOC so was not trying out for it. She, Hannah, and Kseniya came to the trials to enjoy the good competition & courses.
Let's not forget that the number of entries allowed for the middle and long have changed, reducing the number of slots available to fill.
I haven't forgotten. As it happens, I just made a plot of the US WOC team sizes
over this same time period. Note that this doesn't include the regional champ spot in cases where that person only ran in that one race. I think this only happened in 2015 so far - the women's team
actually had 7 that year. Also in 2016, 5 men were named
and assigned starts by the RP, but one declined before WOC.
This discussion thread is closed.