Australia has 2 men and 1 woman in the Middle (men are Div 2, women Div 3); NZ has 2 men and 2 women (both Div 2); US and Canada are both Div 3 with 1 man and 1 woman each.
What are the scenarios for promotion and relegation? (Blair?)
Have to do the calculations (hope to do this tonight) as the system has changed a bit - since it will now only be for qualification for the long, the long has double weight in the scoring so the scores from last year need to be recalculated.
So AUS best in the middle women (23rd), NZ 24th and 45th, USA 40th, Canada 67th.
Is the league table used for just the long distance at future forest WOCs now?
Just did the women's - already seems like the only thing in much doubt is who goes down from Division 1.
Women Div 1 after middle: DEN 413, LAT 421, GBR 447
Div 2 top: CZE 343 FRA 269 EST 244 GER 227
Div 2 bottom: BUL 117 CAN 141 HUN 183 UKR 184 POL 190 ESP 192 NZL 194
Div 3 top: AUS 123 ITA 101 MDA 71 BRA 57 USA 50
Should post the men's shortly.
Men's looks much more interesting, with only Division 2 promotion settled (and Division 2 relegation a real bun-fight). The fact that long points now have double weight means that Russia gets a big boost out of Novikov's silver last year.
Div 1 bottom: CZE 465 UKR 470 FIN 477 EST 536
Div 2 top: RUS 428 LAT 289 DEN 273 AUT 270
Div 2 bottom: ITA 124 NZL 126 HUN 131 GER 137 ESP 137 AUS 155
Div 3 top: BUL 80 CAN 75 SVK 62 USA 62 BRA 36 ISR 36
Thanks Blair. With forest WOC every two years will all regional champs now be hosted in even years?
Blair, where are the rules for the change in point scoring (you say Long now counts double) please? The IOF website 'special rules for WOC' is still the 2015 version, so when/where did this rule change get published as official and confirmed to teams please? Including the retrospective re-scoring of last year?
Also surely much scope for change yet if the Long now has double points and the Relay (already with boosted points) is also still to come? Are you able to publish the official full list of scores ahead of those two races for us please?
With separating forest and sprint WOC I don't understand why IOF STILL insist to use this race model. Why we can't go back to long Q+F.
The decision was made in early 2016; not sure what announcement was made at the time. You're right that it hasn't been formalised into the Special Rules yet.
If the IOF don't post the full progress scores in the next day or so I'll do so myself.
It is rule 6.7 in the Competition Rules, 2018 version
. The list of changes at the end of the document notes it was altered in this version (changed since 2017).
Thanks - I understand what is in 6.7 and that this was changed for 2018.
What I am trying to say is that in the currently published/live rules, neither 6.7 not the additional “special rules” have anything about points for the Long now counting double.
So it would seem odd to suddenly start applying that different scoring system when it is not what is in the published rules and (as far as I am aware) has not been communicated in any other formal way to federations either.
Could be quite important by the end of the week as the difference in approach may well affect some of the promotion/relegation decisions...
The formal decision from 2016 is scattered across various sets of minutes, but that's hardly the most visible way of getting things out there. A consolidated document's been sent to IOF for posting on their website, which will hopefully happen today. (It's normal - although perhaps it shouldn't be - that the rules applying to year X aren't formally part of the Competition Rules until the start of year X).
One other aspect which probably isn't well-known is that the middle final from 2019 onwards, in addition to those who qualify through being top 15 of their heats, will also contain the best-placed person from each country which doesn't have a top-15 qualifier (up to a maximum field size of 60, and as long as they come within 100% of the winner's time in qualification).
Sorry to persist but surely the rules applying to 2018 promotion/relegation should therefore be the ones that were made part of the Competition Rules at start 2018? (i.e. 2018 is your 'year X' above).
I think it is a reasonable principle that things should abide by the Rules as published - whether or not something else was discussed but for some reason not properly formalised, surely the only appropriate way to proceed is to use the actual formal Rules that teams were aware of when selecting athletes and entering teams?
Rules on the fly. Good results always win.
will also contain the best-placed person from each country which doesn't have a top-15 qualifier
This may look good for lesser teams but I don't think this is good for sport overall. How about to have long final before middle final and give some respect to those best 15 who not already qualify for middle final. With this rule we will probably get a situation where an athlete who is best from one team but slower from the second best athlete from another lesser team. This is wrong approach. Sport fairness should be above the IOF goals in other fields of bussines.
Not going to get further at this time into the debate about the system (or its communication), but I have got some updated points after the relay. A few big changes here, thanks to the British and French women not scoring, and Bulgaria's unexpectedly good performance. If your country isn't listed it's an indication you're not going anywhere (either up or down) unless someone who's never been top 30 suddenly wins a medal on Saturday.
Division 1 bottom - UKR 550, CZE 571, FIN 573, EST 600. Still pretty tight here. A mediocre relay from Estonia drops them into a possible relegation bracket.
Division 2 top - RUS 512, AUT 384, LAT 381, DEN 349, GBR 337. Hard to see any other result here except a Russian promotion. (Had they won today, as seemed possible for a while, Latvia would have got just ahead of Russia).
Division 2 bottom - ITA 160, GER 169, HUN 175, NZL 182, ESP 205, AUS 207. Spain were the best of this group today and probably have enough breathing space, but any two of the bottom four could still go down (although Germany and Italy's results so far this week suggest they might struggle to improve their position).
Division 3 top - BUL 120, CAN 103, SVK 81, USA 70, ISR 60. Bulgaria and Canada seem likely, although the scores are close enough here that one decent result could swing it (the Slovakian would need to beat the Canadian by 12 places). USA/Israel need a minimum of 44th/39th to have any chance, even if those above them score no points.
Division 1 bottom - GBR 447, DEN 513, LAT 517. The British mispunch today leaves them with a lot of work to do.
Division 2 top - CZE 431, EST 320, AUT 312, LTU 291, GER 287. Hard to see anyone other than the Czechs going up.
Division 2 bottom - CAN 141, BUL 189, BLR 190, NZL 242, POL 246, HUN 247. Bulgaria's 13th, and Belarus's failure to field a team today, shakes this up, although with neither team getting a top-40 result in the middle, if Denisova runs the long you'd still favour Belarus.
Division 3 top - AUS 175, ITA 145, USA 90, JPN 83, MDA 71. USA need a 33rd to have even a theoretical chance, and without Ali I don't like their chances.
Provisional outcomes below. The men's division 1 relegation and division 3 promotion are so close that I want to double-check the scores before publishing.
Division 1 relegation - FIN (by 7 points from EST). Glibov's silver kept UKR up.
Division 2 promotion - RUS
Division 2 relegation - ITA, GER (a German mispunch saved Australia)
Division 3 promotion - BUL, SVK (by 6 points from CAN)
Division 1 relegation - GBR (the relay mispunch made no difference in the end)
Division 2 promotion - CZE
Division 2 relegation - CAN, BLR
Division 3 promotion - AUS, ITA
I'm also interested to see best 3 results (men, women) in Long from any team from division 2 and 3 by years.
The full league tables should be freely available on the IOF website...
And now they are:
In the last four years (the ones I looked at), the best long distance performance for a division 2 country was Leonid Novikov's silver last year, and for division 3, Denisova's 6th in 2016.
Thanks. Maybe there is a room for best result at each WOC from any team in division 2 and 3. It would be good approach to support lesser teams who have exceptional athlete and that he/she can earn additional spot for long final next year outside of league table. Similar as we have now guaranteed spot for ROCs.