Discussion: OUSA Rules public review period
in: Orienteering; General
Sep 14, 2012 1:51 PM
#
The Orienteering USA rules committee has been working this year on a complete overhaul of the rules document. Over the past few months we have reformatted the rules, debated potential rules changes and solicited input from committees that are heavily impacted by the rules. We are now making a preliminary draft available for public comment. Please note that this is still a draft - final touches are not complete, minor grammatical issues may not be fixed yet, appendices are not included in this draft, and some committees are still discussing changes they may want that don't occur in this draft.
A final proposal for the Board of Directors is expected to be produced by early October for the Board to consider at their meeting on October 20th.
The document is available in PDF format on the OUSA website by clicking on the Archive link at the bottom of the page.
Direct link is:
http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/fil...
Please send any comments you may have to Clare Durand rules@orienteeringusa.org.
Please include the phrase "OUSA Rules" in your subject line.
Discussion that occurs on Clubnet, Attackpoint, or in any other forums may or may not get monitored. Just because potential rule changes are being discussed somewhere does not mean that the rules committee is considering them. Please make sure that you send me a direct email about any rule changes you want the committee to consider making at this time.
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
A final proposal for the Board of Directors is expected to be produced by early October for the Board to consider at their meeting on October 20th.
The document is available in PDF format on the OUSA website by clicking on the Archive link at the bottom of the page.
Direct link is:
http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/fil...
Please send any comments you may have to Clare Durand rules@orienteeringusa.org.
Please include the phrase "OUSA Rules" in your subject line.
Discussion that occurs on Clubnet, Attackpoint, or in any other forums may or may not get monitored. Just because potential rule changes are being discussed somewhere does not mean that the rules committee is considering them. Please make sure that you send me a direct email about any rule changes you want the committee to consider making at this time.
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
Sep 14, 2012 2:19 PM
#
Thanks Clare.
In scanning through the file for changes (apparently in red), I came across B.15 Control Set-up - B.15.3 Markers are to be hung at eye level if possible, with visibility both day and night in most directions of possible approach.
This does not appear to be a change. Hmmm... I hate asking questions that can be answered already - so I found the currently published rules at http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/use... That doesn't seem to have this text...
Anyway - "eye level if possible" seems to not be current practice.
In fact I've counseled our local club that we should hang flags lower to the ground as that seems to be standard at A meets (and spotting them at that lower level is a personal issue for me (and probably others)).
Could I get a clarification as to the existing rule?
(As noted - I'd personally do better with more visible controls, and standard posts with flags is a relatively easy thing to do. I'll just not ask for the shorter posts I was thinking of;-)
In scanning through the file for changes (apparently in red), I came across B.15 Control Set-up - B.15.3 Markers are to be hung at eye level if possible, with visibility both day and night in most directions of possible approach.
This does not appear to be a change. Hmmm... I hate asking questions that can be answered already - so I found the currently published rules at http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/use... That doesn't seem to have this text...
Anyway - "eye level if possible" seems to not be current practice.
In fact I've counseled our local club that we should hang flags lower to the ground as that seems to be standard at A meets (and spotting them at that lower level is a personal issue for me (and probably others)).
Could I get a clarification as to the existing rule?
(As noted - I'd personally do better with more visible controls, and standard posts with flags is a relatively easy thing to do. I'll just not ask for the shorter posts I was thinking of;-)
Sep 14, 2012 8:11 PM
#
Section A is Foot-O
Section B is Rogaines
Section C is Ski-O
Section D is Trail-O
Section E is placeholder for MTB-O
Section F is placeholder for B meets
Section G is Ranking Rules
Section H is Team Rules
We've tried to format the document so that each section stands alone. You shouldn't have to reference anything in the Foot-O rules to put on a Ski-O. That's why there is a lot of duplication.
There seems to be confusion about the red areas. This does not specifically indicate the changes. The entire document has a significant number of changes including reformatting and they are not specifically highlighted at this time. The red generally indicates areas that need to be revisited for some reason before they are done.
I've been asked to create some sort of narrative about what is changed. While I intend to put together something that will hit the changes that are most significant in their impact, the number of small changes is extensive and an exhaustive list of every change is not going to be produced.
Rather than focusing on what has changed, I would prefer that people look at this as a completely new rules document and think about whether or not they like these rules. A lot of the changes were from obsolete procedures to new rules that match current practice.
Section B is Rogaines
Section C is Ski-O
Section D is Trail-O
Section E is placeholder for MTB-O
Section F is placeholder for B meets
Section G is Ranking Rules
Section H is Team Rules
We've tried to format the document so that each section stands alone. You shouldn't have to reference anything in the Foot-O rules to put on a Ski-O. That's why there is a lot of duplication.
There seems to be confusion about the red areas. This does not specifically indicate the changes. The entire document has a significant number of changes including reformatting and they are not specifically highlighted at this time. The red generally indicates areas that need to be revisited for some reason before they are done.
I've been asked to create some sort of narrative about what is changed. While I intend to put together something that will hit the changes that are most significant in their impact, the number of small changes is extensive and an exhaustive list of every change is not going to be produced.
Rather than focusing on what has changed, I would prefer that people look at this as a completely new rules document and think about whether or not they like these rules. A lot of the changes were from obsolete procedures to new rules that match current practice.
Sep 14, 2012 10:39 PM
#
GuyO:
Worth repeating...
Discussion that occurs on Clubnet, Attackpoint, or in any other forums may or may not get monitored.
Just because potential rule changes are being discussed somewhere does not mean that the rules committee is considering them.
Please make sure that you send me a direct email about any rule changes you want the committee to consider making at this time.
Discussion that occurs on Clubnet, Attackpoint, or in any other forums may or may not get monitored.
Just because potential rule changes are being discussed somewhere does not mean that the rules committee is considering them.
Please make sure that you send me a direct email about any rule changes you want the committee to consider making at this time.
Sep 15, 2012 12:29 AM
#
Many thanks for the clarifications - guess I didn't catch that - section B in the original was "TECHNICAL REGULATIONS".
So the statement could be made: "This document represents a compete re-organization of the rules."
One isn't necessarily able to compare the one document with the other.
So the statement could be made: "This document represents a compete re-organization of the rules."
One isn't necessarily able to compare the one document with the other.
Sep 15, 2012 1:18 AM
#
PG:
I took a quick look at sections A (foot-O) and G (Rankings) and have some suggested changes. Sent this to Clare (same thing in Word format), as requested.
Executive summary of suggestions --
1. More precisely defining, and limiting, the loss of eligibility for championships when someone competes in another country's championships.
2. Revising the ranking formula when an individual has more than 4 ranking days.
3. Requiring ISSOM maps for sanctioned sprints.
4. Eliminating requirements to offer recreational courses and classes at sanctioned meets.
5. And eliminate a few other things that only serve to stifle creative organizing.
I'm sure others have suggestions. Now is the time to speak up, and through official channels.
Executive summary of suggestions --
1. More precisely defining, and limiting, the loss of eligibility for championships when someone competes in another country's championships.
2. Revising the ranking formula when an individual has more than 4 ranking days.
3. Requiring ISSOM maps for sanctioned sprints.
4. Eliminating requirements to offer recreational courses and classes at sanctioned meets.
5. And eliminate a few other things that only serve to stifle creative organizing.
I'm sure others have suggestions. Now is the time to speak up, and through official channels.
Sep 15, 2012 2:01 AM
#
PG:
Still sanctioned, but not a "bid" event, i.e. not a champs or WRE or such. My sense is that there are some areas where the rules can looser for A meets that aren't champs or WREs (or, if you like this phrasing better, should be tighter for champs and WREs than for other sanctioned meets).
Sep 15, 2012 2:29 AM
#
The goal of the OUSA A-meet rules should be to help a meet director put on a fair, standard meet. To that end, the rules should:
1. Guide the meet director in their decision making.
2. Be extremely precise.
3. Not contain extraneous bits that are impossible to follow in this country or add to a meet director's burden.
The current draft of the rules do not meet these three criteria. What is the goal of this process? How is this process going to work? Are these rules only for A meets? Are these rules that we should be basing our local events on? Is there a change log that we can reference?
1. Guide the meet director in their decision making.
2. Be extremely precise.
3. Not contain extraneous bits that are impossible to follow in this country or add to a meet director's burden.
The current draft of the rules do not meet these three criteria. What is the goal of this process? How is this process going to work? Are these rules only for A meets? Are these rules that we should be basing our local events on? Is there a change log that we can reference?
Sep 15, 2012 3:47 PM
#
My understanding is that these rules apply only to sanctioned events (A-meets).
Local-event guidance is kept elsewhere. They need an upgrade even more than the official rules.
http://www.us.orienteering.org/event-organizers/st...
On another note. It would be super cool if there was a subsection of the rules that described competitor rules, as opposed to organizer rules. Seems almost necessary, if you really want to promote A-meet participation. As it stands, a new competitor would need to reference, not only the A-meet rules document, but the IOF mapping guidelines and the event organizer's publications prior to their first event.
Local-event guidance is kept elsewhere. They need an upgrade even more than the official rules.
http://www.us.orienteering.org/event-organizers/st...
On another note. It would be super cool if there was a subsection of the rules that described competitor rules, as opposed to organizer rules. Seems almost necessary, if you really want to promote A-meet participation. As it stands, a new competitor would need to reference, not only the A-meet rules document, but the IOF mapping guidelines and the event organizer's publications prior to their first event.
Sep 15, 2012 7:33 PM
#
Please use the OrienteeringUSA.org domain in links from your club websites. We still maintain the other domain but may eliminate it one day.
Yes, that guideline document dates from the days of Robin's "virtual binder." As an all-volunteer (mostly) organization, it needs a qualified volunteer orienteer's time and attention; any offers?
Yes, that guideline document dates from the days of Robin's "virtual binder." As an all-volunteer (mostly) organization, it needs a qualified volunteer orienteer's time and attention; any offers?
Sep 15, 2012 7:37 PM
#
Instead of suggesting a competitor subsection, I'm sure Clare would appreciate it if you (or someone with the time/interest) submitted a proposed draft subsection, e-mailed through proper channels, of course. :-)
Sep 15, 2012 11:35 PM
#
I'd be happy to work on that stuff in the future, but definitely not right now. I've got another dissertation that takes priority this year...
Sep 16, 2012 4:45 AM
#
It would be super cool if there was a subsection of the rules that described competitor rules, as opposed to organizer rules.
Like. Countries which feel they have to pattern their rules on the IOF ones will end up with an organiser manual.
Like. Countries which feel they have to pattern their rules on the IOF ones will end up with an organiser manual.
Sep 16, 2012 1:30 PM
#
Is there a country with a rules document organized this way that could be looked as an example?
Sep 21, 2012 5:43 AM
#
GuyO:
@smittyo: Would it be possible to make a Word version of the preliminary draft rules available?
Sep 21, 2012 1:31 PM
#
Smittyo are you asking for an example of rules patterned on the IOF ones, or an example of rules written for competitors? I know of some biker-friendly MTBO rules, would they help or distract?
Sep 22, 2012 3:10 AM
#
I'd like to see examples of biker-friendly MTBO rules, whether or not they're relevant to this particular thread - they'll be good to know about for plenty of other reasons.
Sep 22, 2012 5:41 AM
#
@gruver - examples of rules split by competitor/organizer. This idea was actually already out there before we started this project. In looking at our rules, it just seemed like there was a lot of stuff that is really important to both, so I had a hard time figuring out how I would organize it as competitor/organizer. Instead, I'm thinking to create a separate competitor's rules digest when the project is done.
Sep 22, 2012 5:43 AM
#
Status Update on Rules Project
Comments that have been received since the publication of the preliminary draft are now in discussion by the rules committee. I have compiled them and posted them on Google Docs. I will be updating this document as new comments are received and decisions are made by rules. The link to the document for those who wish to follow the project is:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
Please continue to send any comments you may have on the Rules draft or on the Google document to me directly
rules@orienteering.org
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
Comments that have been received since the publication of the preliminary draft are now in discussion by the rules committee. I have compiled them and posted them on Google Docs. I will be updating this document as new comments are received and decisions are made by rules. The link to the document for those who wish to follow the project is:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
Please continue to send any comments you may have on the Rules draft or on the Google document to me directly
rules@orienteering.org
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
Sep 22, 2012 9:02 AM
#
Biker-oriented MTBO rules: http://www.mapsport.co.nz/mtbo/nzmtborules2012b.pd...
There ARE no corresponding organiser-oriented rules. MTBO is pretty small round here, the priority was the participant. Of course there's a background of foot orienteering to draw on.
I wonder why we don't start by defining the sport for the competitor? Businesses which organise themselves to suit themselves often fail.
There ARE no corresponding organiser-oriented rules. MTBO is pretty small round here, the priority was the participant. Of course there's a background of foot orienteering to draw on.
I wonder why we don't start by defining the sport for the competitor? Businesses which organise themselves to suit themselves often fail.
Sep 22, 2012 5:24 PM
#
walk:
Michael,
Nicely distilled set of rules, short, precise and to the point. Eliminates so much detail that confuses and makes most rules only for the serious official while not helping the competitor understand the sport.
Nicely distilled set of rules, short, precise and to the point. Eliminates so much detail that confuses and makes most rules only for the serious official while not helping the competitor understand the sport.
Sep 26, 2012 10:05 AM
#
The primary purpose of the rules should be to ensure fairness, as far as practical. It should be understood that a competition cannot be made completely fair; organisers can't control nature e.g. thunderstorms; mappers can't precisely define the terrain on a small bit of paper so much of the map is subjective; runners will inevitably form packs with short start intervals etc etc.
So given a degree of unfairness inherent in the competition the rules should consider two other important objectives: don't create unnecessary jobs for organisers and make it easy and enjoyable for people to actually go orienteering. Trying to achieve an impossible level of fairness will often load organisers and deter potential participation.
The IOF suggest that their rules for WOC, World Cups etc should be used as a template. A wholesale adaptation is not a very good idea if you don't want to burden your volunteers or attract people to the sport. It should be remembered that the best quality events or meets, which are usually held when people can get time off, are the best opportunities to get new people hooked.
We need less onerous organisation and more new people. The rules should facilitate those objectives, as well as fairness.
So given a degree of unfairness inherent in the competition the rules should consider two other important objectives: don't create unnecessary jobs for organisers and make it easy and enjoyable for people to actually go orienteering. Trying to achieve an impossible level of fairness will often load organisers and deter potential participation.
The IOF suggest that their rules for WOC, World Cups etc should be used as a template. A wholesale adaptation is not a very good idea if you don't want to burden your volunteers or attract people to the sport. It should be remembered that the best quality events or meets, which are usually held when people can get time off, are the best opportunities to get new people hooked.
We need less onerous organisation and more new people. The rules should facilitate those objectives, as well as fairness.
Oct 1, 2012 3:16 AM
#
The google doc linked below has been updated with additional comments received during the public review period.
Exceptions - waiting for final decisions from the team that were to come in this weekend, some Trail-O stuff that Frank sent me just today, and some stuff received on the Night-O issue that is getting a lot of talk on attackpoint.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
This week I will be finalizing the document for submission to the Board. As I make edits into the rules, I will update the google doc with the disposition of that item.
At this time, I would still love to receive opinions and comments on those items listed in the google doc that I don't really know what to do with, but not comments on general rules that have not already been brought up unless it is an extremely significant issue.
Thanks to everyone who has been participating to help make our rules as good as possible.
Exceptions - waiting for final decisions from the team that were to come in this weekend, some Trail-O stuff that Frank sent me just today, and some stuff received on the Night-O issue that is getting a lot of talk on attackpoint.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
This week I will be finalizing the document for submission to the Board. As I make edits into the rules, I will update the google doc with the disposition of that item.
At this time, I would still love to receive opinions and comments on those items listed in the google doc that I don't really know what to do with, but not comments on general rules that have not already been brought up unless it is an extremely significant issue.
Thanks to everyone who has been participating to help make our rules as good as possible.
Oct 18, 2012 12:09 AM
#
The following links are to copies of documents that I have sent to the Board regarding the rules revision process. If you have input for the Board on how to handle this at this time, send it to them.
Summary document about revisions and Proposed Board Action:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8_0v_9HS9IRM3pxZ...
Most current rules version including Mark-Up from the Preliminary draft previously released:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8_0v_9HS9IRaS1iQ...
Comments received and decisions made:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
Summary document about revisions and Proposed Board Action:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8_0v_9HS9IRM3pxZ...
Most current rules version including Mark-Up from the Preliminary draft previously released:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8_0v_9HS9IRaS1iQ...
Comments received and decisions made:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F5CisHgDGC_q1g...
Clare Durand
Orienteering USA
Oct 26, 2012 3:45 PM
#
Can we see a copy of what got voted in for rules? Preferably with the correct formatting; the google docs you've linked to in the above post seem to have broken formatting. Thanks!
Oct 26, 2012 4:16 PM
#
Also, just to address the concern in the "significant issues that are not fully resolved at this time" section - the ski-o team is governed by the ski-o ESC. The ski-o ESC consists of Ken Walker Sr (Chair), Rick Worner, Mark Dominie, Adrian Owens, and Alex Jospe. Bylaws and other information can be found on the OUSA website.
I probably should have been more clear when I submitted comments that I was representing the ski-o Team ESC.
I probably should have been more clear when I submitted comments that I was representing the ski-o Team ESC.
Oct 26, 2012 4:30 PM
#
Correct formatting will come later (when there's time to work on that). The board approved what Clare submitted ("most current rules version including mark-up" link above). Clare will have to edit it to include the ski O comments that Alex submitted.
The latest OUSA Board meeting minutes have just been posted > http://bit.ly/R6G0F0
When I get a chance I'll post the "current" version directly on the OUSA site.
The latest OUSA Board meeting minutes have just been posted > http://bit.ly/R6G0F0
When I get a chance I'll post the "current" version directly on the OUSA site.
Oct 26, 2012 5:07 PM
#
What was the outcome of the discussion of number of events to be used for US ranking? (Top 4 OR top 4 plus 1/2 of additional OR top 4 plus 1/4 of additional)
That's unclear both in Clare's summary document and in the Board minutes.
That's unclear both in Clare's summary document and in the Board minutes.
Oct 27, 2012 2:54 AM
#
GuyO:
From the minutes...
Approved the attached rules with the understanding that the Rules Committee will make additional modifications that will include editing changes and a few changes that were approved by the board, but not yet incorporated into this draft.
Is there an official record of the "few changes that were approved by the board, but not yet incorporated into this draft." ?
Approved the attached rules with the understanding that the Rules Committee will make additional modifications that will include editing changes and a few changes that were approved by the board, but not yet incorporated into this draft.
Is there an official record of the "few changes that were approved by the board, but not yet incorporated into this draft." ?
This discussion thread is closed.