Comments on: 3 Minutes Start Interval for WOC Long!

By: Jan Kocbach

Jan Kocbach — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:07:54 +0000

Thanks, Martin. I updated the article.

Note that the rule was not only moved to 1.2 – rather the OLD rule 26.2 was reintroduced, and this was moved to 1.2. This is a big difference, as the old 26.2 only says that you are expected to orienteer independently.

With this wording, it fits a lot better in 1.2, which defines what orienteering is.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:45:00 +0000

:-) Okay. It was a tempest in a teacup ... Rule 26.2 was only MOVED to 1.2. see: IOF Amendments

By: Jagge

Jagge — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:40:21 +0000

I think IOF did here the right thing.

We all agree comptitors should navigate independently and following has played all too big role in past WOC races. And I also belive those runners Martin mentioned above most likely think it’s absurd if someone would have to take different and worse route-choice or stop and wait, count to 10 or something like that. It is a race and competitors are there to do best they can fastest wins.

The problem is in the past competitors used to be responsible for not running together. From now on competitors are allowed to follow if they can, but lots of following is still not desired. This makes course setter / event organizer responsible to minimize the following/pack factor to make the event succesful. This means longer start intervals, use of spreading methods, less competirors in finals and so on. In this perspective I see this all as step forward.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:04:59 +0000

@Anatoljis: I agree with you, that the strict swedish attempt is no good. I just stick up for the preservation of a moral pressure as achieved by Rule 26.2. Part of this pressure is also not to accept ‘grouping luck’ as part of the game or privilege of good qualificants.

By: Anatolijs

Anatolijs — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:55:17 +0000

I just wanted to say that this particular rule (12 seconds…) or any similar to it is absurd. And I do understand how it makes the above mentioned runners feel. I’d feel the same if I knew other runners were cooperating or following one another thus leaving me out of the podium places. And I have been in the same situation as a ‘victim’, even if it wasn’t a WOC – in some way I even know how it feels. But this kind of rule will only lead to bigger problems and disappointments. If there was a rule like that, a vast amount of WOC runners would get disqualified in the recent WOCs – you can tell just by having a brief look on the pack figures from the latest WOCs. It is a part of our game, even though it’s destroys the fairness in some way. It happens, therefore there is a qualification, start intervals, butterflies and other spreading methods to minimize the chance of cooperation and following. Once it happened, something of the latter has failed and you have to accept it, no matter was it fair or not. One day those runners who didn’t get their medals could get in the same situation, the someone else would get disappointed, and I bet they wouldn’t give up their medals. We all want a fair competition, but the rules as radical as this one, is no way out!

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:31:06 +0000

@Anatolijs: Although you seem to share a widespread opinion among worldclass-runners, I disagree with you and I wonder if Birklin and Thoresen WOC1999, Valstad WOC2003, Holger Hott and Haldin WOC2005, Kärner WOC2006, Haldin WOC2007 or Haldin and Brozkova WOC2009 see it the same way as you do.

Runners winning medals in packs indeed have proven that they would be capable to win a medal by themselves but they also have proven that they were not performing at their best at the precise race and that they profited a lot by grouping. Khramow +8% and Lauenstein +17% (both WOC 2005), Mamleev +8% (WOC 2009), Bjorseth +8% and Berger +9% (both WOC 1999) a.s.o. Note: +8% means up to -8 minutes on a WOC Long.

From the runners perspective I would expect to get the result I earned for my individual performance, especially at a WOC, and not be beaten by a +8%-mate.

From the spectators perspective I would expect fair races and fair results at least on the podium.

By: Anatolijs

Anatolijs — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:00:11 +0000

The Swedish “disqualifying runners who are within 12 seconds for more than 3 controls in a row” rule is utterly unacceptable, in my opinion. Runners may take different route-choices and even not see each other and still punch the controls within those 12 (or even less seconds). Or they may navigate independently taking the same route-choice. Why someone has to take a different route-choice (which often could be worse) or stop and wait when he/she has been caught by a follow-up runner or caught someone himself/herself? Or should the runner that has been caught stop and count to 10 while the other one leaves? It’s absurd. Catching someone and sometimes following, whether it’s done deliberately or not, is a part of our sport, which has always been there. Those runners who have been accused for cooperating and following at the WOC finals (who also got the medals) have very well proven how capable they are and have more more than once proven it by winning individual medals with clearly no cooperation at all. Although, bigger start interval is definitely a good decision.

By: Eva Jurenikova

Eva Jurenikova — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:31:10 +0000

The 3-minute start interval is the best decision made by IOF since long time.

But removing 26.2 – I agree with Martin, hanging should not be OK in individual races. Even if is only a “moral” rule, it should still be there.

And it scares me how the decison was made. I cannot even find any information about it at IOF’s website.
What is next? Is it a step towards a mass start at WOC-long distance?

I want orienteering to be orienteering even in the future, not a kind of cross-country running.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:25:24 +0000

@Jan: Surely! There still is 26.3: Except in the case of an accident, obtaining assistance from other runners or providing assistance to other competitors during a competition is forbidden... So it might well be, they are still not allowed to talk with eachother. But to remove 26.2 In an individual interval start race, competitors shall navigate and run through the terrain independently. just means, that they DO NOT have to navigate and run throught the terrain independently anymore, what just means: it is okay to hang and a new tactical measure you can frankly practice. For me it is absolutely not okay and blue-eyed to think the damage made by skipping this moral bondary could be compensated by a three minutes start-intervall (note: at alternativet.nu they talk about other technical measures to avoid hanging, although we know the do not work really satisfying). An other part of the story is, how this decision was made... It seems that the IOF Council did neither talk with the foot-o commission nor with the athletes commission. ?? (according to alternativet.nu)

By: Jan Kocbach

Jan Kocbach — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:38:52 +0000

@Martin: Still, 3 minute start interval is at least one step in the right direction…

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:36:34 +0000

Why separate runners I it is no problem they run together? Go on guys! Just spoil the WOC!