Discussion: How many tricks is OK?

Perhaps Tate needs feedback if you think courses/maps are only suitable for walkers? Seems to me the key is to have route choice as much as possible - specific control placement location not an end in itself so does not need to be hidden.

Walkers? I don't know what the reference is there.
I think one problem for these events is the terminology - if people are taking over an hour, 10 people today, in one case 1:39, it is not a "Sprint". We need to find another name to better describe it so people have a better idea of what to expect. Or, shorten the courses so the winning time is 12 minutes and most people are back in half an hour. Or, and this one I am going to feed back to Tate - have a cutoff point, say after 10 controls where you can decide to just go back to the finish and that counts as a second course option.

Walkers in the sense the you need to be walking slowly enough to see the tricks - whereas running at speed it is hard to read the fine detail of blocked fences etc. However, this might not be one of the issues you have with these events. Offering one course to make life easier for organisers that also suits elites and the creme dela creme versus the hoi polloi will run into issues like you have raised - not sure how much extra admin would be added by your suggestion but worth testing the waters.

Does ACTOA have controllers to review the courses and try to moderate the event to a standard?

No. The intent is that these courses are simple to organise and fun. Sometimes they are more fun than others depending on personal preference and that’s fine!

We don't have controllers for all our events either, mainly just champs and state series events. With the late notice for our new event calendar, getting setters alone was hard enough.

WA also doesn't have a good track record of winning times for standard (or national champs come to think of it) sprint events, with it usually tending around the 17-20 minute area.

How many tricks is OK? Would have thought O-ing's immediate answer would be 'None'.

Certainly a single course might be easy to organise, but is hardly going to be 'sprint' for a significant number of participants (especially in WA where a large majority of members are over 50). Don't know what the ACT membership demography is, but I didn't see many older veterans in the results over the series, and those that were there were recording times in the 20s and 30s even on some of the shorter, and easier events. It's almost impossible to maintain the maximum running speed relative to navigation which is the essence of sprint orienteering, and what makes it challenging and exciting, for much more than 15 minutes. Thus too-long courses force vets to slow down, the navigation becomes too simple, and they won't get the same sense of being 'on the edge' for the whole race.

And tRicky, you're exaggerating as usual. National sprints at York, Mandurah, Curtin and Scotch College were all within recommended winning times for elites, as were the last two WA titles. OK I'll cop Narrogin, should have allowed for people not being able to cope with the transition from campus to bush and back again.

I was recalling Mandurah as being too long also but maybe that was just my time. Ah yes I checked and the winning times for M and W elites were 16:53 and 16:24 respectively so well within the recommended winning times :P

York was before my time and I wasn't allowed to run at Scotch so they don't count. I'll reserve judgment on your setting until after running the all important Elizabeth Quay MapRun sprint ;-)