Does anyone know if there will be live coverage of JWOC, either progress results or tv? Sprint race is tomorrow 1400-1700hrs Central Europe time.
Simmo, JWOC doesn't start till 2nd July
Aside from that, i dont know
Yeah, I'm getting ahead of myself - it's on tomorrow week! I had searched the website before my original post and there's nothing about live coverage.
It seems the big events never put up live links until the day of the event. Send the organizers an email and (1) ask if there will be live streaming audio, video, and results, and (2) ask them to announce it on their website, including the time when the links will appear or become active.
If you get an answer, post it here.
Still no news on live broadcasting. In the meantime, the Aussie team has started blogging
As are the Canadian (see here
) and American teams (see here
Some more collected news from the teams at JWOC:
(same as above)
Team USA blog
Team USA bios
Team Canada blog
Nothing to report yet (maybe later?):
(only last year)
(2008 & 2009)
There will be a LiveBlog in cooperation between the organizers and World of O. You'll find more info at World of O tomorrow - and probably also at the JWOC page.
I probably won't be able to moderate myself (as our place for the training camp in France seems to be without Internet!?), but according to our agreement the JWOC organizers are doing the moderation. Would be good to have some help from somebody else as always:)
I emailed the organizers and received this response:
There will be online results only and [the link] will be published before start of
No bummer, just a bum steer CC. The JWOC website now has a link to an 'Online Center' (why the American spelling?) which will have online results, split times (do they mean radio controls?) and live chat.
@ jankoc - have tried to load the 'JWOC All you need to know' item on WOO three times without success.
for some comic relief.
The matron sounds interesting. What about buxom serving wenches (a la Cafe Polski from Harry and Paul)?
Sprint race tomorrow! Here are the US and Canadian start times (in local time, first starts at 2:00pm):
Lee Hawkings Canada - 2:09
Zachery Schroeder USA - 2:28
Giacomo Barbone USA - 2:47
Carl Underwood USA - 2:49
Emily Ross Canada - 2:51
Molly Kemp Canada - 2:53
Graham Ereaux Canada - 2:56
Emily Kemp Canada - 3:16
Alison Campbell USA - 3:20
Kendra Murray Canada - 3:23
Ethan Childs USA - 3:37
Nathan Lyons USA - 4:08
Andrew Childs USA - 4:21
Tori Owen Canada - 4:24
Megan Parson USA - 4:28
Graeme Rennie Canada - 4:37
So, that makes it 8am starts for the east coast. I can wake up that early!
As has happened at previous JWOCs, the website doesn't appear to be able to cope with the number of hits it is getting.
A bit shaky live results to begin with, but right now it seems to work...
Emily Kemp in a great 14th position right now (4 pm local time), but I guess there are still more runners coming in.
Best NA runners so far :
1) Tereza Novotna CZE 14:52
Emily K 16:42
Alison C 18:21
Kendra M 20:04
Molly K 20:27
Emily R 21:03
1) Lucas Basset FRA 15:09
Nate L 18:17
Giacomo B 18:59
Graham E 20:04
Ethan C 20:04
Zach S 21:27
Carl U 22:27
Looks like there are some [non-live] videos here:http://vimeo.com/channels/206136
NZ currently in 1st for women!
Update 5:15 pm local time:
1) Ida Bobach DEN 14:31
36) Emily K 16:42
85) Alison C 18:21
111) Kendra M 20:04
114) Molly K 20:27
116) Emily R 21:03
122) Meg P 21:58
124) Tori O 22:09
1) Lucas Basset FRA 15:09
105) Nate L 18:17
115) Giacomo B 18:59
118) Andrew C 19:07
132) Graham E 20:04
132) Ethan C 20:04
144) Zach S 21:27
148) Carl U 22:27
Well done everyone! I can't wait to see the maps!
1. Ida Bobach (Denmark 14:31
2. Emma Klingenberg (Denmark) 14:35
3. Tereza Novotna (Czech REpublic) 14:52
36. Emily Kemp 16:42
85. Alison Campbell 18:21
111. Kendra Murray 20:04
114. Molly Kemp 20:27
116. Emily Ross 21:03
122. Meg Parson 21:58
124. Tori Owen 22:09
Did something happen to Lee H?
Men (With 4 still unaccounted for including Lee Hawkins)
1. Lucas Basset (France) 15:09
2. Andreau Blanes (Spain) 15:21
3. Robert Merl (Austria) 15:22
101. Graeme Rennie 18:12
105. Nate Lyons 18:17
115. Giacomo Barbone 18:59
118. Andrew Childs 19:07
132. Graham Ereaux 20:04
132. Ethan Childs 20:04
144. Zach Schroeder 21:27
148. Carl Underwood 22:27
160 Starters, 156 reported finishers
There was a reference on the live chat about someone (unnamed) having been taken to the hospital (reason unknown also).
1) Lucas Basset FRA 15:09
101) Graeme Rennie 18:12
105) Nate L 18:17
115) Giacomo B 18:59
118) Andrew C 19:07
132) Graham E 20:04
132) Ethan C 20:04
144) Zach S 21:27
148) Carl U 22:27
The times they are reporting from the live chat are different than those in the on-line results. They have Howald 3rd not Merl, for example.
Does anyone know how they were timing the race? I was wondering if they were using some sort of chip timing system like in road races for the official finish time but using an epunch system for on-line results.
The guys results has 156/160 in the top corner, so I wonder if not all the runners are in yet??
There was some comment that the time on the shoe chip was different for Merl than the clock. hmmm
My understanding from reading the bulletin, and also from watching the sprint video from Germany last week is that the official time is from the shoe chip (champion chip). This allows them to run hard into the finish and does not decide the outcome of the race on the ability to punch the Finish control at speed. Then they try to keep them in order and get them to punch the Finish control as quickly as possible, which is the radio control time.
Yes, the timing system is separate from the punching system (as always at JWOC/WOC). However, the online live results are generated from the punching system, unfortunately...
The official results are in and there have been some changes; probably becasue of what Valerie said above. The link for the mens result is
If you don't want to follow the link,
1. Lucas Basset (France) 15:07
2. Andreu Blanes (Spain) 15:17
3. Florian Howard (Switzerland) 15:20
106. Graeme Rennie 18:09
108. Nate Lyons 18:14
114. Giacomo Barbone 18:40
119. Lee Hawkings 18:56
123. Andrew Childs 19:04
136. Graham Ereaux 20:00.1
137. Ethan Chlds 20:00.7
145. Carl Underwood 21:13
147. Zach Schroeder 21:26
158 total starters
The link to the official Womens Results is here
1. Ida Bobach (Denmark) 14:29
2. Emma Klingenberg (Denmark) 14:31
3. Tereza Novotna (Czech RePublic) 14:41
38. Emily Kemp 16:37
86. Alison Campbell 18:17
106. Kendra Murray 19:18
113. Emily Ross 19:55
115. Molly Kemp 20:23
122. Meg Parson 21:55
124. Tori Owen 22:03
What do people think of those courses?
From my personal preference I found they had some nice route choice legs, but had perhaps a little too much 'watch out for the trap' cuteness. But that is just my particular preference.
There is one sequence of controls on the women's course that I don't understand - 15-16-17-18. In particular the leg 16-17 appears to me to have only one option, and then 17-18 basically back-tracks along that same route.
And control 21 (at the bottom of the steps) seems almost dangerous on paper - with both mens & womens courses using it.
I thought the courses were tricky but I think the US and Canadian juniors should have been prepared for them. Emily K ran the Baltic Cup and posted her route and some discussion on her attackpoint log. It was a different map but the same type of legs including a loop in the woods.
Re: 16-17, I think there is only one good route but I have the benefit of looking at it on my computer with no stress. Were I running, I might have opted to go back toward 15 which would have been a mistake.
Start list for the long (by country) is here (First start 9:00 in Poland =3:00am EST)
Emily Kemp 206:00
Molly Kemp 136:00
Tori Owen 86:00
Kendra Murray 256:00
Emily Ross 130:00
Lee Hawkings 219:00
Graeme Rennie 71:00
Graham Ereaux 183:00
Alison Campbell 112:00
Megan Parson 250:00
Nathan Lyons 67:00
Andrew Childs 287:00
Ethan Childs 37:00
Carl Underwood 117:00
Zachery Schroeder 299:00
Giacomo Barbone 169:00
re:16-17 . I wasn't so much questioning that leg (though it isn't one of my favorites), more so I'm wondering about 17-18 ... since the runners will have essentially just run that entire leg in reverse on their way from 16-17
2. Andreu Blanes (Spain) 15:17
Is this a new O-team-best for Spain?
So sad - out of bed at 4am and no radio controls are working for the Long...
Congratulations Emily! Great to see you back in form after all those knee problems!
Yup, great run from Emily! Excited about the middle!
Wooo la Petite Canadienne!!
Competition is fierce over there. Giacomo especially should be proud (go CSU!) sneaking in just ahead of Canadian Lee Hawkings, but the whole team is faring very well. I hope to hear more from the Team Blog about their races, but compared to recent years this year's team has been having a good showing.
Also, looking at the course they ran today, I can easily imagine getting worn down by all the climb, so much up and down. And then 4-5 on the men's course is tricky and 13-14 on the women's course gives quite a big chance for a parallel error there too. Plus, the butterfly loops must have been hectic with so many runners in the woods!
Keep up the good racing, team. It sure is exciting to watch from home!
I'll say! Competition is fierce and the US & Canadian teams are putting on some really good performances. I hope they're having a great time and will come home full of enthusiasm & determination to keep getting stronger. Super fun to watch!
Meg, Nate, Giacomo, Andrew & Ethan were all sick with food poisioning a few days ago so that probably didn't make things any easier. I think all the Canadians were in different accommodations and avoided the plague.
Great results, especially coming back from food poisoning!
Middle Quali races tomorrow! The top 20 from each heat go into the A final, 21-40 go into the B final and 40 on go into the C final. Typically, the women only have 2 finals. Starts are at 9am in Poland, which is 3am EST. A bit early for most people. But in case you're a night owl, here are their start times listed as minutes after 9:00.
Ethan Childs 1:00
Zachery Schroeder 27:00
Nate Lyons 45:00
Alison Campbell 52:00
Andrew Childs 67:00
Giacomo Barbone 79:00
Carl Underwood 89:00
Meg Parson 94:00
Graeme Rennie 17:00
Lee Hawkings 35:00
Emily Ross 42:00
Kendra Murray 54:00
Tori Owen 58:00
Graham Ereaux 67:00
Molly Kemp 94:00
Emily Kemp 100:00
Maybe it's been changed but bulletin 3.02 says first start is at 10:00 (Poland time) which is 4:00am EST
I just checked and the website says 10:00am (Poland).
By the way, if the normal link to the website doesn't work for you, try this link
Anybody up out there? I can get the live feed, but they're not talking anything about the race having started. Also, the audio is from Monday's Long. Any audio or other supplementary links?
Looks like Alison Campbell had a pretty good race.
Kendra Murray has a good finish so far
Do you two usually communicate via AP? ;-)
It looks like Andrew and Giacomo have made the B final, according to the preliminary results - nice work!
Congratulations to Andrew and Giacomo for making the B Final and Emily Kemp for making the A!!!!!
Is this Emily's 3rd year in a row?
Kendra Murray's and Alison Campbell's results aren't too shabby either. Nice work!
4th year for Emily
Kendra missed by about a minute
I had the most shit run EVER!!! Lost easy 4.5 mins. Want to cry because a clean run would have gotten me in A final by a few places.
However congrats to Emily for having a great run (or should I say Molly ;) ) and the boys. We are all back now and showering. Then an easy afternoon and get ready for the finals.
Umm, Alison... memory?
There have been plenty of decent performances. Remember, there is no entitlement to a better-than-average race just because it's a big competition. Best wishes to all in the finals!
My favorite audio from this morning was when Emily was coming in to the finish, the announcer said she was from France. I guess her immersion has really worked!
He did correct himself - I think the Canadian jersey helped jog his memory that she was just on loan to France.
They also had molly's plaque up for emily's time for awhile which is why i said Molly.
The results for the middle qualifying races (actually all the races) are here
Great effort all round from the NA'ers- congrats to the A and B finalists.
BTW the Aussie men had a good day with 3 in the A final I think and 2 very near misses.
Yeah, and New Zeland is doing really well too.
I guess this got lost in the wave of Long results...
"2. Andreu Blanes (Spain) 15:17
Is this a new O-team-best for Spain?"
Blanes also won Men's Heat 2 and was 13th in the Long; another Spaniard, Antonio Martinez, took 10th in the long.
I seem to recall -- though it might have been some time ago -- that Spain was once around the same level as the US. Clearly they have improved, at least for junior men, and I have to wonder how their program made this move.
Austria's silver in Long was also a record, I believe. Nice to see some new countries up there on the podium!
How many juniors in the US do regular mid-week technical training? Take a look at what AliC is doing, then look around you.
It's great to see Spain joining the ranks of the more serious nations, even if it makes it one step harder for everyone else.
Start times for the Middle Final are here
--First Start is 10:00am in Poland =4:00am EST
North American Start times;
Men C-Final (Approx 4.0 K)
Carl Underwood 4:00
Zach Schroeder 10:00
Graeme Rennie 17:00
Ethan Childs 23:00
Nate Lyons 27:00
Graham Ereaux 29:00
Lee Hawkings 31:00
Men B-Final (Approx 4.0K)
Giacomo Barebone 51:00
Andrew Childs 53:00
Women B-Final (Approx 3.3 K) (Molly Kemp not running, sprained ankle in the long)
Emily Ross 40:00
Tori Owen 50:00
Meg Parson 52:00
Alison Campbell 72:00
Kendra Murray 86:00
Womens A- Final (Approx 3.5K)
Emily Kemp 165 (Go Emily!)
GREAT RACES everyone! Go USA and Canada in the Middle Finals!
GuyO: Clearly they have improved, at least for junior men, and I have to wonder how their program made this move
There may or may not have been any "move". Australia has had excellent results, now New Zealand is doing better. I haven't seen any "move" in either country that has led to this. I have noticed that a bunch of good juniors coming through at the same time produces greater motivation and training. But even this effect is eclipsed by the occasional brilliant star. Was Hanny Allston the result of Australian training systems? Is Emily Kemp the result of Canadian training systems?
I think the Kempster is the result of some very spiritual pasta. Holy Macaroni!
can i ask people to not go about saying what our system has "done wrong"? It is an important question to look at so that we can improve i agree. however there are 8 of us here already knowing we are not placing high and have two races to go. We are doing our best and would appreciate people sending good thoughts for clean runs. We cannot do anything more now that we are here other than get our minds ready. So that is what we are going to do and I'm sure we all would be more than happy to give you our input on what would be helpful to the juniors to improve once JWOC is over.
Emily Kemp finished in 5th with lots of good runners to come. Another awesome result...but will it be as awesome as her 13th in the long? Looks like she may have trouble early but then one of the fastest times after that. Well done Emily! Inspiring.
depending what the top 5 or 6 runners do could this be a new personal best for Emily in % behind the winner. What is the Canadian best % behind winner at WOC or JWOC? Looks like she will be about 20th to 25th overall.
then again it all depends on what Ida runs and she just threw down an amazing first split time.
Could have 3 Danes in the top 5
Three-way TIE for FIRST PLACE in the Men's Middle Distance. Incredible!!!
Wow THAT was exciting! Couple of kiwis involved in ties as well, you'd think with their long noses...
I really liked the interviews witht the women quali finishers. Many interviews, and a couple walk-bys of North Americans,.
Good perspectives of the course and the errors and good times along the way.
What I am about to say may make me unpopular. But I think if you read the whole thing, you will realise it's actually positive.
A program will only ever be as good as the dedicated individuals within it. Having a bunch of people who are both personally close and motivated, and also geographically close, will always push the individuals further.
Competing well at JWOC or WOC takes many many hours of physical and mental preparation. The GB juniors put in over 12 hours of training a week at Edinburgh, with at least two midweek sessions on maps, and their best results have still only been in the top 20s (I think this is great btw, just trying to explain how hard this is). You can decide to do this, or you can decide to turn up at the race and race as well as you are able on the day.
It is the decision of the athlete. We can put things in place and plan programs for people who want to take part in them. But it's the hours away from this exterior motivation that really count. Just look at AliC for a truly incredible example of this.
Orienteering both here in the US and at home will never offer a competitive, paid career. Many people without extraordinary talent like myself chose a professional working career, or academic success at college over sporting performance. And this is totally fine. But it does mean that hours shouldn't be spent mentally wrangling over how to make people like me better when I have already accepted that I won't ever be the best.
The most important thing is to enjoy your racing, and have realistic expectations. If you decide to make the step up, a la Emily or AliC, then people like me can do everything we can to help. But be prepared to put the hours in. I have never been to JWOC, but I can only imagine how fantastic it is to be surrounded by cool people from many nations, and make friends that last a lifetime from across the world. Make the most of it, relish the opportunity. Don't beat yourself up because your expectations weren't realistic.
The best thing the USA could do to improve their team performance is increase participation of young adults. Even better, in geographically concentrated areas. Look at the current West Point crew for a great example of how well this works. With bigger pools, these super committed individuals will occasionally appear, and with more competition for them, the better they'll become. Focus towns should be picked, every possible area around them mapped, and recruitment actively pursued. This system is working very well back at home, and can work here aswell.
Just a curious question - why is the middle the only one that had a qualifier and final?
I think some of the reasons that the middle is the only one with a qualifier and a final is due to logistics. There are only so many days of competition and already a lot of races to fill those days. I think the middle is selected for a quali/final format because it helps build an exciting race to have all the top performers running in the woods at about the same time.
I don't know the answer but what Ross says makes sense. One "nice" difference (in my opinion), between WOC and JWOC is that all the JWOC kids get to run all the races. Not so at WOC
Only the Middle A-final results for Women
Where are the Men's B & C, and Women's B results??
Not official results, but the preliminary Men's
results are certainly deeply hidden on the website.
has all the results. (Although the finish times shown may be based on punching the finish box rather than the official chip time.)
Re Middle Qual/final - it doesn't really make sense on logistics to have them run consecutively, as was the case here. They could have just had a seeded start draw.
I think the 150 person Sprint one off final was a great idea and wish that WOC would follow suit.
Qualification races end up just eliminating the erratic and mostly those from "lesser" countries. I would prefer everybody gets a chance at the final and I was very glad to see medals for Spain and Austria and the first JWOC gold for France. Lets have more "upset" results.
Check the AUS JWOC team blog
for a spot of controversy. This is how Angela Simpson (NZ) was DSQ, and apparently Tove Alexandersson (SWE) could have won the Women's A Final (she lost to Ida Bobach by 35s, but see below).
The control description is actually correct, although the crossing point symbol is rather small - it means 'Mandatory Crossing Point' (see IOF Control Descriptions page 15), but I wonder how many competitors knew that. I hadn't come across it before, but you would expect team managers to be aware of it. The map is also ok, because it shows the marked route through the mandatory gate.
The blog doesn't mention if there were any markings on this mandatory gate - IOF Rules state 'Compulsory routes, crossing points and passages shall be marked clearly on the map and on the ground'.
It does seem that the organisers erred when somehow they managed to let Angela get through the wrong gate. They probably should have closed it and/or had at least two officials there to turn people away. DSQ may be a bit harsh if there were no markings on the ground, perhaps they could have given Angela a 1 minute penalty instead.
The splits show that Tove lost only 26 seconds to Ida at no.6, and she was still leading after punching it, so I personally don't think it cost her the race.
Arguable Simmo (and I understand argue they did, but the protest was disallowed). I don't know what was said in the bulletins or managers meetings, but that control description symbol means "Mandatory crossing point OR POINTS". The bit of map on the Aussie blog is very messy with bent purple lines for this and a later leg. Among all that the crossing point brackets on the map are almost invisible.
NZL women are doing really well!
Not to mention NZL men...
Does anyone have a link to the Men's Relay Results? The JWOC site shows only the top six teams for the men.
i just read on twitter:
sim5907 Simon LEROY
Forking mistake at #jwoc , what a year
3 hours ago
anybody any information?
Complete men's results
seem to be up now.
Here are women's results
Splits are at the results site now, too.
Nice improvement by the US guys over last year: 28.8% behind the winner vs. 35.3%. And they knocked off Canada for the first time since 2007 (when Canada was DSQ).
Nothing like a good bit of controversy ;-)
For this relay situation, personally I think that although the intention of the organizers is clear (from the bent line) that in fact they did not draw the course correctly.
On a bigger point, I wonder why they made that a 'forced route' - it seems to make no significant difference to me which way people go from 5-6 (presumably the spectator leg is 6-7).
So, if I read the rules correctly...
IOF Competition Rules:
17.3 Compulsory routes, crossing points and passages shall be marked clearly on the map and on the ground. Competitors shall follow the entire length of any marked section of their course.
705 Marked route
A marked route is shown on the map with a dashed line.
Therefore, the route between 5-6 should have been marked on the map with a dashed line. But it wasn't - it is marked with a solid line. (I wonder if it was marked in the terrain?)
The curved purple lines mark crossing points, but DO NOT make them mandatory (ISOM #708)
So a very awkward situation. The intent is clear, but the marking is not. S*** happens (but simmo, I don't think you can award arbitrary time penalties ;-) It really sucks, but I think this is another of those situations where you just have to take it on the chin.
Stop talk rubbish about mandatory crossing point.
Please read this
page 5 "special instructions"
page 15 13.3
But if someone wants to save time not looking at the descriptions, its up to them.
It's possible to set course in a way that is technically correct, but still poor course setting. I don't know if that was the case in this situation, but it seems like it could be.
If there is a reason why competitors should go a particular way, that information should be presented in a way that is very clear. Determining that this is the case should not be challenging, and if it's easy for the competitor to do the wrong thing without even realizing it, that's an indication that something is wrong.
I was not there, and did not see firsthand what the situation was like. From what I can see of the control description and the map (difficult to decipher the markings in that cluttered area), it looks like there should have been markings on the ground. I don't know if there were.
In general, I think mandatory routes and crossings should be avoided, and if necessary, they should be made as obvious as possible.
In general, competing at international level requires to know the rules. No excuses.
Organisers need to know the rules too, and show marked routes with a dashed line on the map and with tapes on the ground.
Don't escalate please. Crossing point isn't route. There wasn't marked route for this leg, so no need to use dashed line.
I'm not saying that the competitor should be excused from a rules violation, or the results changed in any way. However, the organizer may still have done a poor job, and presented the competitors with a bad leg. In particular, the blog post suggests that for some competitors, an official was at the disallowed crossing point, and turned them away, while for others, there was no official and they were able to cross and be disqualified. If that is true, it is an inconsistent situation that is of questionable fairness.
Crossing point isn't route.
There wasn't marked route for this leg, so no need to use dashed line.
IOF Competition Rules:
17.3 Compulsory routes, crossing points and passages shall be marked clearly on the map and on the ground.
(Emph. added.) The mandatory crossing point should have been marked clearly in the terrain. That is, there should have been something distinguishing that particular gate from a state that gate would be in if there was no competition: bright flags, tape, banners, an official in a bright vest, or all of the above. If there wasn't, the organizers are in violation of the Rules, and all disqualified runners have grounds to protest. If there was, then I believe the protests have no grounds.
What I really object to is the obvious straightline route to the next control, and yet the confusing bent line going to the crossing point over 90 degrees to the left. Apparently the course setters wanted to make the initial control difficult, when what they should have done was give it away with a marked route. (When you know it's a marked route, you know there are tapes leading away from it, and you can sometimes use that to your advantage.)
I wouldn't feel the same way if the mandatory crossing was just a few degrees off the straight line, or if the entire prohibited crossing was taped both on the map and on the ground.
What they've achieved is a too-clever trap leg that is unfair.
5 and 6 are so close together it is reasonable that there would be no connection line between them. The actual line on the map touching 5 isn't pointing to the center of 5, therefore it's not clear it is a connection line at all. I would have considered extending the line inside the circle if I had to use these controls. I probably would have put a control at the crossing point, giving those two circles the appearance of an "8". Alternately, I would have moved 5 to the pit east of the numeral "5" so the line going to the crossing wasn't over 90 deg off the straight line. Seriously, a marked route with a big funnel is the way to go. Someone screwed one of those up at the Denmark WOC, but that was much more clearly the competitor's fault, IMO. This leg design just screams unfair to me.
I'm not so sure that things are clear at all. In fact I think the notion of mandatory crossing point is very unclear in general (and not just in this case).
I agree that the IOF's "International Specification for Control Descriptions" says that:
"Special Instructions: These lines go in the body of the description and give specific information about the nature of the route that must be followed at that point (e.g. follow taped route for 50m away from the control; use mandatory crossing point".
Seems clear, except for a couple of problems:
1. Sure, the control description states that runners must pass through a mandatory crossing point. But I can't find any way at all in either the IOF Rules or the IOF mapping specifications to indicate to the competitor where a mandatory crossing point is (other than using a dashed line, which they did not do in this case).
2. There is no place that I can find in the rules that refers to this "Control Description" document, so if you want to get sticky about things (like I would think is appropriate at a World Championship) then you can't really refer to that document in saying what the competitors should or should not do.
I think this situation points out another issue for the Mapping Commission to address in their update to the ISOM.
Trying to trap runners is bad enough but what really made this case bad was the official turning some people back but missing Angela. Many other runners in the non-A finals had used that gate so it probably wasn't clear to her supporters to yell at her to go back.
Also, I think the organizers should have put the mandatory crossing symbol on the control description sheet they handed out the day before so any runners who didn't know had a chance to look it up.
There was a marked route from 5 to 6 too that was not marked on the map or the control description. Coaches very pointedly asked at the meeting if there would be any marked routes and mandatory crossings at the relay and if so, how would they be marked.
@ AZ - IOF Rules 18.2 The control descriptions shall be in the form of symbols and in accordance with the IOF Control Descriptions.
The title of the control descriptions document is 'International Specifications for Control Descriptions' with the IOF logo beneath, so they are similar to IOF Mapping Specifications, ie mandatory for IOF events. You'll find them from the IOF Home Page, under Resources - Mapping.
It's good to hear different points of view, you pick up some interpretations that escaped you first up. I am conscious that we haven't heard much from people who were there (although perhaps nerimka was?)
So, I think (probably):
- The organisers were not nasty people, they just wanted runners to go through one of two gates in a high fence and not the other, for spectator or crowd-control reasons.
- The competitors should have been aware of all of the occasionally-used bits of the Control Descriptions document (AZ I reckon we'll find the link from the rules there somewhere)
- The competitors reaching control 5 (or even before) looked at their descriptions and found, not the next control, but a line which meant "mandatory crossing point or points"
- Looked on the map and (being thoroughly relaxed and with perfect 20year-old eyesight and with all the time in the world) saw control 6 on the other side of a high fence, with two gates in it
- Aha there is a crossing point or points, I have to go through one of them. There's one. Away I go.
- Get to the gate. Someone says something in Polish (actual report via Angela's mum). Doesn't mean anything to me, on I go.
- AFTERWARDS, when someone points it out, I can see the purple brackets on the other gate, and the kink in the connecting line going through that one.
- Very hard to see though. Does one always run the purple line? No I scan the map for the best route, a solid line is only an indication of order of controls. In fact I have been taught its a good idea to work back from the next control as well as forward from the last one. Once you find a reasonable route choice especially if its not far off the beeline you just get on with it.
The culprit is the messy layout which prevented the purple brackets from standing out. Most of the brackets seems to be covered by the black of the high fence and crossing point lines, there is only a tiny bit poking out. (Tentative view, I'm looking at a web version of the map not the actual paper.)Perhaps with hindsight the organisers are now regretting that they didn't do it a different way:-))
I wasn't there. Thats why I'm not talking about things like what info was provided to competitors, what language used when warning (it's hard to imagine that there will be translators to every nations language, so probably host country), someone was missed or rather simply doesn't obey.
I think organisers have nothing to regret. This was good leg. Instead of marked route competitors had additional task in nature of middle distance (constant concentration and map reading, small route choices, direction shifts).
Nowadays almost every course passes arena during competition and involves different types of marked routes, crossing points.... It's task to read everything. Sure, everyone can simplify task, save seconds not checking control numbers (codes), not looking at descriptions. But they takes a risk to be mp or dsq.
You should be familiar with all rules when competing at this level.
That's my opinion, I'm leaving this thread.
simmo - thanks! I agree that rule 18.2 is enough to make the Control Description document an official Rule.
There is still the question of how to mark a mandatory crossing on the map. This bent solid line I do not think is enough. Nor is the purple curved lines (708) which mark crossing points, but nothing I read says they are mandatory. They seem to be simply to add clarity to a map.
nerimka - I agree that it is important for runners to pay attention when they come to the complicated arenas we have a major events these days. But it is also important for the organizers to draw the maps clearly. We want our races decided by orienteering skill - these crazy discussions of the rules are for the internet forums.
I suppose this questioning of the rules is really hiding the fact that I'm mostly disappointed at the course planner for creating this situation. I would be very upset if I set a course in which runners were disqualified due to a technicality like this. I think there were (much) better ways to handle the situation. Why not put a purple "X" over the other gate to mark it forbidden?
I agree that competitors should be familiar with rules. And forbidden features are very important rules to be familiar with. In fact I wrote an article about this because I realized there was lots of confusion about this. The article (available online here
) I thought covered all situations. But it did not include this "mandatory crossing". The article has been published in national magazines in UK, Australia, Canada, USA and so presumably read by many people. Nobody pointed out this omission. Maybe that's what really is bugging me about this - the hole in my research ;-)
Memo to Olav Lundanes... its not just Sprints.
Disclaimer - I wasn't there and have jumped in at the end of this conversation but the big issue I see here is that something that was forbidden to cross wasn't marked as such on the map. There should have been a purple X over the other gate as AZ says.
I have been wondering the same. There was official stopping competitors and running there was perfectly allowed according to map. It sure sounds like the setup was far form fine. So if someone likes to use that gate to get to the crossing point that should be OK, right?
nerimka, FYI, you have been talking to multiple IOF Event Advisers in this thread.
Actually, the whole fence should have been marked with the purple "uncrossable boundary"-symbol (no 707). And as I understand it, there is nothing in the rules that forbids climbing or jumping high fences (no 524).
nerimka: No, none of the legs from 5-6 and 6-7 are good legs for a middle distance. It's sprint orienteering on an ISOM-map and also really stupid in a championship race. A taped route the whole way would have been better.
Now lets move on to the forking/gaffling error in the relay. From the splits and maps I've seen it looks obvious that not all teams have run the same total course length. But no protests and no at a single word from the organisers it seems...?
Now lets move on to the forking/gaffling error in the relay. From the splits and maps I've seen it looks obvious that not all teams have run the same total course length.
I was wondering about this - I assumed the distances listed in the splits file that was posted was wrong, since it showed:
US I: 5.3+7.9+7.9 = 21.1K
US II: 5.4+7.3+7.2 = 19.9K
Canada: 4.9+7.8+7.2 = 19.9K
Poland I also says 5.3+7.9+7.9=21.1K
while Poland II says 5.4+7.3+7.2=19.9K
Looking at the splits in detail shows the US teams ran these legs different from each other:
US I: 114-132, 132-126, 126-117
US II: 114-115, 132-116, 116-129, 129-117
That's not supposed to happen at the end of the day, right?
Eriol, to a degree I appreciate your call to move on, but I think there are some points that deserve amplification, in hopes that things like this don't happen again.
First I agree with your assessment that these legs are not Middle distance orienteering, and yes, "really stupid in a championship race." at least with the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. There were other more conventional options to accomplish the same movement through the arena.
Evem with that "hindsight" acknowledgement, I am not willing to let the course planners off the hook. All along, they had more conservative options, such as a marked route out of 5, which they chose not to apply. I'm not inside their heads or egos, but I'm guessing they wanted to squeeze every possible technical challenge out of the terrain, and didn't want to partially give away the control with a exiting marked route (also noted above?). This is a noble objective, but not at the expense of a controversy or unfair situation. The result is that some competitors paid the price for this lack of judgement, and hopefully some future planner will be swayed by this public review.
Unfortunately this solution can apparently be justified as being within the rules, but as noted above, this is a completely insufficient rational. The rules exist to support orienteering, and organizers exist to support orienteers, not the other way around, which I think is a very fair summary of the arguments supporting this circumstance.
Then there is this notion that has come up repeatedly, seemingly unchallenged;
"You should be familiar with all rules when competing at this level".
This may be good advice to an orienteer, but is thorough nonesense as an organizer's rational, and doubly so, when more precisely phrased above as
"..all of the occasionally-used bits of the Control Descriptions document."
I can't believe this was written with sober, straight face, talking about junior orienteers, regardless of how good they are.
I will agree that all orienteers must expect to live by the rules, but to KNOW (??!!) the rules, this is utterly unrealistic, not only for Juniors, but M/F 21's as well, and I'll bet that only a small minority of IOF expert controllers, could answer this one correctly in a couple of seconds. I am not ashamed to say that ~ unmarked route to a mandatory crossing~, caught me off guard (it is indeed in my 2004 hard copy which I just hauled back and forth to Norway). I'm proud to be included with others on this thread surprised by this line.
I can agree that this instruction this should be an option, but only as a less preferred option, in a clear map situation. It is not easy to define "clear map situation", but I think we have a concensus that this was not the case here.
For future course planners, and probably many other endeavors- if the leading argument for a solution is "it is within the rules", please reconsider. There is very high probability you are not serving the customer/client You are serving yourself, and only in the short term.
I'm ready to move on. Certainly looks like there is "a case to answer" with the boys relay, the complicated forking between 114 and 117. And maybe the girls too, I haven't diagrammed that out. But maybe there's something we don't understand. I mean, if the distances reported above are right, 1.2km difference, it seems hardly possible that there could be such a close result, 19 teams within 10min of the winner.
I'm with Eric and many others on this one. Yes, this situation MAY be "within the rules" (or maybe not). However, it is entirely possible to design a totally ludicrous course that is "within the rules". Pick any map, go ahead and try to see how crazy a course you can plan that is "within the rules".
At all races, and especially at any World Championships, course designers should be striving for MUCH better than simply being "within the rules". Being "within the rules" is simply the barely acceptable minimum standard. Any thinking orienteer can see that, while the situation here might arguably be "within the rules", it is certainly not something we should aim to repeat in the future.
Is this event further evidence (eg WOC 2010) of the risks of the Leibnitz Convention leading to undesirable course setting compromises.
Regarding the apparent desire of the course setter to maintain the high technical difficulty of a middle---Sure, I understand that. But events like this (that really matter) compromise the "middleness" anyway when they use so much of the course distance in spectator legs.
For these parts of the course where the orienteering stops for a few hundred meters, the organizers really have to take the responsibility of getting the competitors out-of-the-woods, through the arena, and back into the woods.
Does anyone have a map of the Denmark WOC where a competitor missed what was by all accounts a completely obvious funnel for a marked route? I'm not sure, but I think there may have been a 90 degree bend there as well.
Just thinking out loud: I also object to the idea that the competitor should have checked the clue sheet (control description) before leaving the control. It just seems backwards to me that "Sure the map was confusing, but we're within the rules because the clue sheet explains it."
What I'd like to see is an ISOM change that involves a change to the shape of the circle in cases like this, to take out the reliance on the clue sheet. I was considering something like a teardrop-shaped "control circle" that would point toward the marked route or mandatory crossing just as the start triangle points to the first control. Either a teardrop, or a double triangle (analogous to the normal finish circle), or even a normal start triangle. The problem is that you normally don't punch at triangles, so I'm thinking this teardrop might be simple and obvious. I'm imagining a 60deg to 90deg angle touching a partial circle at two tangent points. It might be worth drawing up to see how it looks on a map. (It might need a thicker line or some funky colors. Maybe the circle could be normal with the arrow part of it solid or hatched purple or magenta.)
Donald Norman wrote a book called, "The Design of Everyday Things". In that book he talks a little about doors. Have you ever walked up to a door and pushed when you should have pulled (or vice versa), or pushed on the hinge side of the door? Donald Norman says when that happens, it means the door is badly designed---The look of the door should telegraph to you what needs to be done: Either a pull handle or a push plate usually. For example, a lot of old commercial doors have a pull handle that looks just like a push plate. When I mention this in a group of people where we are talking about aviation accidents, I see a lot of nodding heads, but a few people always laugh as if it is a joke. That always freaks me out.
We've teased out most of the issues on the middle, you're preaching to the converted now.
On the relays, we HAVEN'T teased out the facts yet. It's just not possible (is it?) that the distances vary as much as has been suggested. But within that, I want to know how the relay splits worked from control 114 to 117. If all teams ran all the same legs then its a clever piece of planning that I may want to emulate, sometime. But I'm curious about the codes against each runner on the splits webpage - eg for Robert Merl BBCBBDA
Now I guess these represent the splits, and if there are three members in a team you would cover three options, viz A, B and C. So how come D in the second-last position? Dmitry Nakonechnyy has got ABACBFA. There are all the letters A-F there, so six options somewhere on the course? Perhaps someone knowledgeable could tell us how it all worked. Someone like, er, Nerimka?
There is no big difference we are talking about and it's in the girls' relay:
For the first fork:
Norway 1: 124-107-101 + 123-119-120-125-101 + 123-119-120-108-101
Finland 1: 124-125-101 + 123-119-120-108-101 + 123-119-120-107-101
If I measured correctly on this map http://www.eldevio.ee/projects/doma/show_map.php?u...
Norway 1 had a total course which was about 40 metres shorter than Finland 1. Maybe it doesn't explain the whole time difference of 36 seconds, but it would have been a lot closer.
Just to summarize the discussion of the mandatory crossing, by way of listing what would have been okay - and there have been a number of good options:
1. use "uncrossable boundary" (707) all along the fence - so that the 'mandatory' gate is the only way allowed.
2. put an X on the other gate (though this does not stop people climbing the fence - so must best be used with option 1)
3. mark the route all the way from 5-6, both on the ground and with a dashed line on the map.
4. move control 6 to the gate and extend the marked route between controls 6 and 7.
5. make a mandatory route just from the gate to the existing control six (marked in the field and on the map with a dashed line)
(and don't forget about the other less controversial mandatory crossing following control 7 ;-)
Regarding a mandatory crossing, this reminds me of the same discussion from the Norte Alentjano O Meeting 2010 in Crato, Portugal (WRE).
I can't read German well enough to get the details of what was said about that example from Portugal, but the map snippets show what appears to a perfect example of something I've said repeatedly. It shows mandatory crossing points where the competitor is required to go, that are well off the straight line between the two control points.
This is very bad course setting. If the course setter needs to control exactly where a competitor goes, we have a mechanism for doing that. It's called a "control". Put one at the crossing point. It's also much easier to enforce than a mandatory crossing point like this.
I agree and it's more or less what we were discussing as well.
It's a pity that such situations happen in supposed to be high standard IOF events!
While this example still is "within the rules" (but bad practice) the relay is clearly "outside the rules" (if what above is written by Eriol is true). Not all teams ran the same course considering the forking. I'm very disappointed that this can happen at a JWOC!
Forking errors also happened at the arguably more important Jukola
only three weeks ago. You might think the JWOC planners would pay attention...
Someone earlier wrote Stop talk rubbish about mandatory crossing point. Please read this. page 5 "special instructions". page 15 13.3. It's clear.
It's clear? How can a rule be "clear" when the only clarification is buried on page 15 (section 13.3) of the special instructions section of the international specification for control descriptions . Especially when the description is prefaced by a statement that the descriptions are intended to "reemphasize what is shown on the map." Since I don't see any statements in the ISOM about how to draw mandatory crossings (only how to forbid certain routes, or to provide marked routes), I can only take it that these mandatory crossing descriptions have been invented to violate their own purpose, and emphasize something that is not shown on the map. Far from clarity.
Incidentally, the IOF competition rules document (which ought to be one shop stopping for critical rules) doesn't say anything about mandatory crossings at all, or how to mark them. Although there is a line of text saying that "forbidden routes, line features that shall not be crossed, etc. shall be marked on the map. If necessary, they shall also be marked on the ground" Looks like the JWOC organizers failed to abide by that rule.
I'm with JJ. If you want to control where somebody goes, just use a control. I believe that's why they were invented. (And if you can't get enough precision using just controls, then use something that is really clear like a flagged chute.)
Always allowing for more information to surface, the relay forking has been shown to be wrong. Not to the extent of a kilometre as claimed (that must be an arithmetic or publishing error). But if ANY TWO teams ran a different set of legs, no matter how close in distance, fairness is compromised. bishop22 gave an example towards the end of the boys course. Eriol gave an example near the start of the girls. I have looked at some teams I know and they show the same thing.
I can't be bothered trawling through the rules, would someone like to do that part of it? Is there anyone with an innocent explanation for the above differences?
Applicable rules for relays - 16.6 and appendix 6, 4.2
I agree with nerimka - if you are competing at international level, you should know the rules. If you think the IOF rule book is a bit obscure, try sailing - there's a thriving industry based on explaining the racing rules of sailing. However, the organisers seem not to have fully thought through the implications of the course design. AZ and others have correctly summarised how it could have been drawn. One can think of plenty of weird examples where running through the supposedly illegal gate would have been quite OK with the course as drawn.
Vladimir, thank you for your remark. I'm not familiar with these people, so my approach to this issue was from other point of view.
Yes, as a organizer or course setter everyone wants to avoid uncertainty. "Recreational" orienteerers wants something like "what you see is what you get", they usually doesn't takes time to read bulletins and competition info. Only map. This can lead to misunderstanding, if course involves something not "common" .
This is matter of practice. Maybe in some countrys course setters does their job with lack of variety. If you once ran through mandatory crossing point, you'll know what it is ever. Orienteering could be more complex task than just run and read the map, or even just run (probably you have watched knock out sprint when some people ran all course with folded map?). Maybe this was effort to force competitors to read control descriptions. Who knows.... (How do you explain nature of ordinary mp? Doesn't looked at the descriptions, didn't checked code? If CP correct, you saved seconds. Its fair or unfair?)
Every course is compromise.between specifity, difficulty, clarity, competitors, spectators, tv.... But if you addicted, you breathe with orienteering, you are regularly competing in various environment, after some time you will be ready for everything at this level.
Competitors, who wasn't ready for such task, thinks that it was unfair course. Others thinks that they lost concentration, or taked risk, and made a mistake. Or didn't made.
World of O posted
about the JWOC forking error.
Oh that's pretty awful... I wonder where the Event Adviser was.
Surely this sort of mistake would not be possible if the setters used recognised course setting software. I can't see why Jukola would use separate software (Exel) for the forking. Having the course printing and forking separate is just asking for trouble - especially with 1000+ teams
You can always hack your way through course-setting software.
'Surely this sort of mistake would not be possible if the setters used recognised course setting software'
Not sure about this - even though the software might produce variations that potentially enable fair courses, you still have to allocate the variations. If the course setting software doesn't have event management capabilities, Excel is a useful tool.
Looking at the JWOC relays, one fork (on the men's course at least, possibly the women's as well) had 6 variations, so it is odd that this didn't alert the organisers to the possibility of a problem in a 3 person relay.
I first thought I could replicate the JWOC problem in CONDES, but I could only do it, if I called it a 6 person relay. Wonder what the organisers used for there course setting
When trying to replicate, should be noted, that all legs had ABC forkings and only second last forking (for men) was ABD for legs 1 and 2, and CEF for leg 3.
This discussion thread is closed.