Discussion: WOC 2014 starting slots (M&L) announced

Women: CAN, USA, AUS get 2; NZL 1; GBR gets 3.
Men: GBR gets 2; CAN, USA, AUS, NZL get 1.
http://orienteering.org/qualification-for-world-or...

Link to the model (how slots are calculated): http://orienteering.org/qualification-for-world-or...

So the results from Oceania 2013 are the personal places for 2014?

So Pablo Sanguinetti, who didn't finish either the middle or long qualification races is going to be running the final next year?

I've got nothing against the guy, and I hope he had a great time at WOC, but there are going to be more people like him. People who are basically non-orienteers running in the final.

It is far more damaging to the sport to have very bad people running the final compared to good people not running the final. If a good person misses out because they are the 5th best sprinter in Switerland, then that is a shame for them. But if we are trying to make orienteering look credible on a global sports stage and we have people getting utterly lost, timed out, and removed from the forest then it just makes the sport look bad.

Why don't we give everyone a finalist in the sprint? It's much easier for novices to finish the sprint than the forest disciplines. It's probably easier for new orienteering nations to develop sprint orienteering in city parks and universities than it is to go out into the wilderness.

It makes for mors sense in the sprint. It's a short winning time, if it's mainly urban then it won't track up regardless of how long the start list is. Live TV coverage can start once the big guys get going (much like TdF TT today).

@Dave: I think not; pretty sure that will only apply after Oceania 2015.

presentation says

"Regional Champion in the distance from most recent IOF Regional Championships"

which unambiguously means a Regional Champion spot every year, including 2014 based on 2013.

Whether they'll do what they say remains to be seen.

@nixon
Why don't we give everyone a finalist in the sprint?
Does sound like a great idea. Once long ago every country got a finalist in the individual, which really gave everyone something to race for. I seem to remember one year US bagging two 26th places (with 25 automatic qualifiers).

I expect the answer to the question is either:
1/ We didn't want to make even more changes.
2/ 45 starts + 15 min race is ideal for a 1 hour TV coverage.

(you don't need to tell me those are rubbish answers)

Even if it isn't formal, organisers *could* invite one athlete from each country to act as pre runners...

Hope your ankle recovers quickly.

Every sport needs its "Eddie the Eagle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_%22The_Eagle%22...

Ski-jumping didn't seem to think so:

"In response to the Edwards phenomenon, in 1990, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) instituted what became known as the Eddie the Eagle Rule, which requires Olympic hopefuls to compete in international events and place in the top 30 percent or the top 50 competitors, whichever is fewer.
Edwards consequently failed to qualify for the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France and the 1994 Games in Lillehammer, Norway. He managed to get a 5-year sponsorship from Eagle Airlines, a small British charter company, to fund his attempt to reach the 1998 Games in Nagano, Japan but failed to qualify for those as well.[9]"

Exactly the point. The IOC only made those changes after it had its Eddie moment. It needed an Eddie to make those changes. This thread suggests such a moment will come for the IOF.

IOF want to make orienteering a global sport, I propose a boycott from all 'lesser Nations' lets see them promote a World Champs as global with only 20odd European counties in it.

Win for Europe.

@lazydave - I'm seeking clarification from IOF on this point. It wasn't my intention in drafting the proposal that that be the case but I'm not sure what Council ended up deciding. If it is indeed the case, Thomas Reynolds and Grace Crane have struck it lucky....

Sorry to be obtuse and to have missed this elsewhere, but can someone please point me towards the IOF justification for these qualification/eligibility changes to WOC? What deficiencies did they identify and how are these changes expected to redress those?

Blair wouldn't Carsten and Lauren Gillis also get spots being Oceania Middle Distance Champions?

I would expect that for the purposes of that rule (if it exists), the middle distance champions would be considered to be the highest-placed eligible competitors in the World Cup race, i.e. Grace and Chris Forne. For the long there was no equivalent World Cup race (although there will be in 2015).

So Chris, Thomas and Grace (both) should get the spots going off what the IOF has so published (who knows they'll probably change it suits their needs).

@Blair - surely it goes to shoe how inept the IOF is and how ill concevived the new 'system' is that this wasnt made clear?

If one of these runners (or other regional champions) was to withdraw would the next person get the spot?

Oh dear, that can't be what was intended - the Oceania long wasn't even a WRE, didn't have a full complement of elite entries from Aust or NZ, and many of the people who started it did so with the intention of not finishing, because it was sandwiched in between World Cup races.

Make some more rules, that'll fix it.

Are there any IOF's comments on federation's replies on first draft. I didn't spot any changes in the final model from what was already said in the draft. None!

What I see as a weakness of IOF is that they don't have a human resources or enough democratic decision making proces. They just wait that everybody loses the energy and at the end they repeat once more what was their prefered choice from the start with no real arguments why they choose it and why proposed models from other federations have no value. No comparision of different models.

Well if this is a win for Europe that is for sure not a win for lesser EU countries and the sport as a whole.

Is the min. Standard still on 500 WRE points? Are there any news about new WRE model? I think they said that it will be presented at WOC.

@kofols (None!)

As I said, the final model changed the "Regional Champion" rule such that there's a place every year.

Though like blair said, that was probably a cock-up rather than a decision.

We look forward to welcoming Oceania Champions to WOC 2015. What could be more appropriate than having athletes who didn't try to qualify at an event we didn't bid to stage ;)

re Personal places for regional champions - I guess it's one way of emphasising Oceania competition rule 4 "Each of the Championship events may be held in conjunction with some other major event, though not a National championship (individual or relay), provided that the Oceania Championships event receives top priority with the other event in all aspects of the promotion and organisation".

surely a regional champs should automatically be a WRE???

As I said, the final model changed the "Regional Champion" rule such that there's a place every year.

How does this work? Are they changing the Regional Championships system so that we should start holding one every year? or do the same people get slots two years in a row?

surely a regional champs should automatically be a WRE???

That's adding a headache on top of another headache to an otherwise perfectly fine "A-meet", in this country. Until 2012.

If IOF had planned that a region only got an extra runner every two years at WOC that would be rather silly so the non Euro countries should make sure that we do indeed get a regional champion in EVERY WOC. Then it would make sense for the regions to host an annual Regional Championship.

I've long argued that North America should have a joint Team Trials every spring (late April and early May) and call it the elite NorAm Champs. With automatic WOC qualification on the line it would (I hope) get a strong field. Since NAOC 2014 would have regional champion spots for WOC 2015 on the line I guess the idea of an annual elite NorAm Champs could kick in for the spring of 2016.

Something for OUSA and OC to look at for sure.

Hammer - combining Team Trials with the Champs would have the added bonus (not for the poor athletes wallets) that athletes based in Europe would want to come back - making team selection easier and increasing the depth of field at this event.

Yup. But an argument could be made that the TT and elite NAOC should be in the autumn prior to the WOC year to make it easier on the Euro athletes (less big races in autumn in Europe thatn spring). Regardless I'm hopeful that OC and OUSA and their respective high performance programs will look into this and chat together to get the best possible fields at our respective TT and Regional Champs.

USOF voted down both the spring "elite" Champs and a high-performance program.

surely a regional champs should automatically be a WRE???

That's adding a headache on top of another headache to an otherwise perfectly fine "A-meet", in this country. Until 2012

so negative - always complaining about the extra requirements - if you don't like the requiremnents - don't offer to run it - some people enjoy the challenge.

But the reality is a regional champs is already an IOF event - subject to IOF (not local) rules so there is no extra work involved in making it a WRE as well.

My point was really - why would the IOF not automatically consider a regional champs a WRE - seems crazy they don't, given regionals are supposed to be 'showcase' events.

From IOF rules:
1.15 The IOF World Ranking Scheme is a system to rank the World’s Elite Orienteers based on their performances in the World Games, World Orienteering
Championships, World Cups, Regional Championships and World Ranking Events....

IOF Regional Championships are by definition part of the World Ranking Scheme. Until recently, however, the North American Championships was not an IOF Regional Championship. We weren't bothering to sanction it through them. I think both Canada and the US are now committed to IOF sanctioning of NAOC, especially since this will be necessary to gain the Regional Championship spots at WOC.

ok so then presumably the oceania long champs WAS a WRE.

... or the Oceania long champs wasn't a Regional Championship

One of those two things I think has to be correct ;-)
Note that to be a "Regional Championship" for the purposes of this discussion, it must be the IOF-sanctioned Regional Championship.

It seems like it's bad for development, but those who are at the top in CAN/USA and NZL/AUS are going to get to run a lot more finals than this year.

All 4 nations will get 1 male finalist plus a regional champion. In 2013 there are no long finalists from North America or Down Under, and only 1 middle finalist (AUS). So potentially 11 extra finalists.

There is a similar increase for the women. CAN, USA and AUS will get 2 forest finalists each and NZL 1, plus the regional champs. In 2013 there were no NZL finalists, 1 from CAN & USA in each final (same person for each), AUS also got only 1 long finalist but 3 in the middle.

Potentially 10 extra finalists and the only drop would be AUS women's middle team, and that is only if they don't win the 50/50 automatic regional spot.

So looking at the numbers, both regions are gonna have a lot more finalists in 2014 than this year.

presentation says

"Regional Champion in the distance from most recent IOF Regional Championships"

I don't think the IOF will be bound by a powerPoint presentation slide. I suspect that in the actual rule the wording will be clarified to be that this applies only to the WOC in the year immediately following the Regional Championship.

We look forward to welcoming Oceania Champions to WOC 2015. What could be more appropriate than having athletes who didn't try to qualify at an event we didn't bid to stage ;)

I don't understand? You didn't bid to stage WOC2015? I must be missing something here since there was a very strong bid to host WOC2015 from both BOF & Sweden (and I think some other place). Are you saying the bid for Scotland 2015 didn't involve the local clubs?

But if I did get it wrong, you could expand to..

What could be more appropriate than having athletes who didn't try to qualify at an event we didn't bid to stage using a qualification system nobody seemed to want ;-)

I think it is urgent to change the Oceania Championship rules so it can also be a National Championship, and then hold it each year as a joint national/oceania championship.
There is good evidence of Championship overload already in Australia. I think its twice in the recent past now an Australian carnival has been fully or partially shifted from its designated host due to burn-out. One of these was an Oceania carnival. Shifts like this just shift burnout. As one of the organisers involved in that shifted Oceania I can say that I didn't meet much enthusiasm trying to build task rosters for logistics. The washup wasn't all that good either. The main organiser of one day has not been seen at orienteering events since. Add the odd club resignation as well. We really don't need the burden of two/three/four extra championship events every second year. And no, despite what Rob says, there aren't that many people who enjoy organising these things. Its more a case of an ambush obligation to procure a lead organiser.
For those who do the work on the event rosters, the extra WOC spot at stake isn't an incentive at all. Only one in fifty would be aware of the changed qualification rules. If you doubt this, wonder why a substantial number of my club chose to organise and run in a local event on the same day as the Oceania Championship at which we had the responsibility to set up facilities.

I should be a wee bit careful with pronouns here (and various confidentiality agreements), but I meant that BOF (not me) bid for the "old" WOC not the "new" WOC.

The Finns did their finals with two forests - had we known we could get away with two forests I suspect things would have looked very different.

But dinnae fash yersel. Scottish orienteering is fantastic!

So is the haggis.

There is an issue with the Oceania Championship if its held in conjunction with the NZ Championships which are held at Easter. That would potentially impact numbers attending the Australian 3 Day, also traditionally held at Easter. While VIC, ACT or NSW might not be affected too badly I would suggest that WA, SA, QLD and TAS would be. The best solution might be not to hold the Australian 3-day in those states if NZ is hosting Oceania; either cancel altogether or move it to VIC/NSW/ACT.

Yes, that less than subtle point escaped me. I'd consider almost anything as long as it doesn't involve us running more carnival events.

Also, consider that current timing of the Australian nationals is after WOC in the calendar year. If Oceania champs were annual and alternated every year between Aus champs and NZ champs (before WOC in the calendar year), then at WOC time EVERY year the reigning Oceania title holders will have been decided at a NZ champs. Mind you I can't see a problem with that.

So NZ might as well organise every Oceania. Might as well keep the event separate from easter as well. Sounds good for the average Australian orienteer. ;-)

If i am correct only EOC has WRE status by automatic. EOC organizer pays to IOF to hold the regional champs and IOF pays the costs for event advisor. Also EOC rules are clear about who is able to run and become a regional champ. Are NAOC or Oceania rules ready or not?

And what about African, Asian or South American Champs? Do they even have regional champs?

From the point of view of WOC qualification, the Oceania Championships can be for elites only, and could be held annually, say on the QB3 weekend - 1st weekend in
June in NZ, the following weekend in Oz. Then the Oceania for other classes could be held every other year, as at present. Seems like the past few years, elites haven't really taken Oceania all that seriously, and have been in separate Aust/NZ matches.

Regional Champs. Asia Pacific OC was abolished, Africa doesn't have one yet

http://orienteering.org/calendarresults/foot-orien...

Currently IOF competition rules covers only European and Asian regional championships. It is really unprofessional that IOF list NAOC, Oceania and South America championships. It sounds that Council has a superpower and are able to govern our sport with rules or without any rules. They are telling us that their decisions are above rules, above GA decisions. They are able to make and force their decisions outside what was agreed. And we are tolerating this behavior in general. WOC q model is such an example. If they would play by the rules they should have to ask GA to vote before they implement it. They like superpowers as all politicians and their answer is: silence. If governing the international sport organization means using all necessary assets to achieve the goal than I am not a fan of this quasi democratic sport organization called IOF.

Okay, this is nuts: http://iof.6prog.org/WR_Event.aspx?Fed=NZL&yymm=13... IOF also applied WRE points to the Oceania Middle Distance Championships which were held on the same day as the NZ world cup middle distance race, on the same map but not the same course. That event was definitely not an WRE (and neither was the Oceania long; it doesn't just happen by default)!

Oh, and they did it for the Oceania sprint as well. This was the same course, on the same day, as World Cup sprint; in fact it was a defacto B final for many WC team members. I think the ranking points have been calculated separately for each race though.

The North American Championships (at least for 2010 and 2012) were sanctioned by IOF as Regional Championships at the request of the organizing Federations. Appropriate fees were paid and it was understood that they would be IOF ranking events. I can't speak for Oceania, but at least as far as NAOC goes, we've been working with the IOF and getting what we expected out of it. IOF, Canada, and USA are aware that specific IOF rules for NAOC do not exist at this time and are working to correct that. Until this new WOC qualification thing, there really hasn't been a need for special NAOC rules beyond those already specified for IOF ranking events and a few eligibility issues that Canada and the USA have defined ourselves.

Don't forget Jamaica, Barbados, and Puerto Rico...

http://orienteering.org/events/?event_id=353

IOF also sanctioned South East EU championships and approved event as WRE with no chance to get 1 spot for WOC. Region has stronger athletes than many official IOF regions but this sub region is not in accordance with IOC regions so we are probably the coleteral damage of IOF vision to become a global sport. In reality this sub-region champs have no sport value beside to promote sport in the region. Maybe we could propose 1 slot for our region until we become an Olympic sport.

Why is Cuba in the South American Region?

Because it is north of Barbados, Jamaica and Puerto Rico.... Logical, no...

@kofols - "Currently IOF competition rules covers only European and Asian regional championships" - what version of the rules are you looking at?

ROC 1.13 The Regional Orienteering Championships (ROC) are the official events to award the titles of Regional Champions in Orienteering for each IOF Region. They are organised under the authority of the IOF and the appointed Federation. The IOF Regions are Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America.

ROC 3.10 Regional Orienteering Championships take place every two years.

But on the interweb assertion can be a strong weapon in the hands of people without enough inclination to confirm facts first, maybe a career in media for kofols? ;-)

What kofols is referring to is that the detailed rules for the European and Asian Championships are appendices to the main IOF rules, whereas the Oceania and North American rules haven't yet been incorporated there (in the case of Oceania this is pretty close to happening, not sure about North America).

Why do we sntipodeans engender a low 'care factor' about Oceania / formerly APOC? I can remember it being the 'discretionary' race in previous carnivals - except for the 3 in the ANZ Challenge team. Complete utter lack of status I guess. That sounds like it's changing - but unless tied in with another event of significance it won't appeal to non-WOC aspirants?

Blair, will the Oceania rules be appended "as is"? Adoption of EOC rule 8 would be useful if updates are being considered.

"(ROC) are the official events to award the titles of Regional Champions in Orienteering for each IOF Region."

So, NAOC and Oceania regional champs get the official IOF medal or this is just on paper. If IOF sanctioned event as "championships" I'd expect that. Is it possible to see what kind of medals athletes get at these events? I am curious why IOF approves WRE events as regional championships if event is not part of the official IOF event structure (South East championships).To me, word "championships" should mean something for athletes and media.

@Tooms
I think I am allowed to make assumptions and doubts in IOF decisions and their intentions that their decisions are really the best solutions for the sport. If someone needs to confirm facts this is the job for IOF representatives. They poses facts but I suppose Blair is not allowed to comments all questions. I think even if worldofO ask questions as the media representative he can't get a prompt answer from IOF. So, let me know which media could get answers and additional explanations about WOC model?

@kofols, don't mind me - I'm not often all that serious and the language barrier doesn't allow for clear understandment.

I understate Tooms often.

@Hawkeye - not quite - on the one hand, the current Oceania Championships rules cover all age groups whereas the IOF definition of regional championships cover only open (M/W21) classes; on the other hand, there are elements of the existing European and Asian Championships that don't fit Oceania (both those events have selected teams, whereas unless it is part of the World Cup, Oceania is open-entry). The draft is based quite closely on the Asian Championships rules where applicable. There are some other curly issues to consider, such as finding a wording which includes New Caledonia while being acceptable to France (who are sensitive about anything which implies that New Caledonia is a separate entity to France) and doesn't open the possibility of the French getting themselves an extra WOC 2015 spot by sending Thierry Gueorgiou to Noumea for a few weeks before Oceania 2015.