maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3  

AOA OY Points

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 23 June 2012, 8:40 AM  
trying to figure out how it works..
Elite runner wins R2 and gets more points than winner of R1. M40's told to run R1, but some ran R2 scoring more points than those running proper course. Something's wrong here.
Can age-grades to recommended course be clarified so we know what to run tomorrow.

Show Profile  rob.g Posted: 23 June 2012, 1:19 PM  
We need to go back to the old old scoring system asap

20 years ago a simple system worked well.



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 24 June 2012, 1:12 PM  
20 years? WOA has changed, and changed back, and changed back again in that time. Taking a leaf from national politics.

Show Profile  Dwayne Posted: 24 June 2012, 2:57 PM  
Clubs never agreed to a change.
I was on a committee discussing it and we were to report back to club presidents before any change was made. John Powell decided in his wisdom (sarcasm) that he knew best and changed it arbitrarily. No further comment from me or I will say something I may regret.

Show Profile  robbie Posted: 24 June 2012, 4:43 PM  
Dwayne
Our club Counties-Manukau did discuss the change and agreed to let John have a go.
There are a lot of things our three auckland clubs dont agree on but any one of the three clubs will go ahead with their own idea regardless. In Auckland, without an AOA we continue to fall apart. We have lost our stucture,oy competition,oy and championship trophies, junior coaching,magazine and season program. We lack leadership and forward drive.

Show Profile  NW Posted: 24 June 2012, 5:09 PM  
Actually NWOC and AOC are working really well together at the moment. Both our clubs discussed this issue and disagreed with everything John put forward, but instead he disregarded our opinions and wrote them off as "ill-considered" because they were not in line with his personal proposal.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 24 June 2012, 6:01 PM  
Sounds like you guys are taking some lessons from national politics too:-))

Show Profile  idiot Posted: 25 June 2012, 3:06 AM  
Sounds like there'e no shortage of idiots then!

Show Profile  SteveO Posted: 25 June 2012, 5:16 AM  
But back to the original question. It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) that the points posted for OY1 are the "Course" points and that a weighting factor of some description needs to be applied to get "age grade" points. There is a sentence at the bottom of the technical stuff, which I am sure wasn't there a couple of weeks ago, that suggests that the weighting factor is the ratio of course lengths.

Further, I think that Greg got given more than the maximum 20 points on R2 because he was running down and therefore Pete was defined as the top runner with 20 points. But this is real supposition and assumes that we call Greg an "outlier", which is not something I would do in his hearing.

And the M40 question really does need to be answered. According to the first table in the rules we should be running R1 but this is then contradicted by the second table that says R2.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 25 June 2012, 6:03 AM  
Ok maybe the weighting factor may help, we'll have to wait and see.
It is also hard to tell atm what winning times and course grades each course is really aimed at. I can't speak entirely for other grades or courses but with R1 & R2 the lengths have seemed a bit odd to me, esp with OY 1. There is a big difference btwn elite runners and those from 40-49. The R1 course looked like a compromise between the two. Would it be better to aim R1 at elite and move 40's to R2, and so on... but R2 was so much shorter so that would also need to be lengthened with further thought about course/grade recommendations.
Or do others think it's fine as it stands?
Would it just be easier to give recommended course length guides (for average terrain) such as R1 = 10.0+/- km (M21E), R2 7.5+/- km (M40/W21E/M18-20), R3 5.5 km etc.
Sorry for raving, I know it's not the end of the world as is, and maybe the weighting will give people better options and solve some anomolies.

Show Profile  John P Posted: 25 June 2012, 7:45 AM  
Well spotted Steve - more than a few others, including me when I wrote the event information document for the website, did not spot the paradox of the placement of the M40 age-classes in the two tables! What I am proposing is that M40 appear in the Red 2 course box in the top table, this is the one that gives guidance to orienteers and course setters about what is expected for the average orienteer in the age-classes, and further, that the M40A age-class division be allocated to Red 1. Any comment?

Well spotted again with regard to the change in the weighting technique. The original was carry over from last year, which used medians, but it did not work well with the OY1 results this year, I suspect because the manner of the calculation of points is very different, hence a change to the ratio of course lengths. The resulting OY points looked OK to me for the people concerned but my powers of critical scrutiny are clearly suspect given the M40 issue above.

My problem as the OY statistician is to devise a procedure that fairly assigns points to people in the same age-class who run different courses and that is acceptable to clubs. There is no obvious solution to the problem and my explorations of the not obvious have not been fruitful.

As I understand it, the CM club prefers there to be a course competition only leaving age-class competitions for the area and national champs. However, AK and NW wish to retain an age-class competition even if it is some respects far from ideal in accuracy and fairness. My position, therefore, as the OY statistician is to try and get the best technique possible. I am open to suggestions.

You are correct in identifying Greg's result was treated as an outlier, perhaps 'rogue' would be a better word!





Show Profile  Michael Posted: 25 June 2012, 10:41 AM  
Hey Auckland while you're sorting this out could you define some national standards so that we could bring in league tables for clubs?

Show Profile  NW Posted: 25 June 2012, 4:39 PM  
How is one elite winning course 2 one week "rogue" yet another winner the next not?

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 26 June 2012, 1:14 AM  
Nelson and Marlborough's solution (probably based on some other club's) - you don't run your allocated grade - you get 5 points - end of story - if you run up or down a course - tough. However, 2 rules should be stuck with: don't change the rules during the competition and don't tick off the statistician (unless you want to do the task yourself).

Show Profile  Marquita G Posted: 26 June 2012, 3:12 PM  
So how come the winner of C2 by 8.5 minutes at OY1 is treated as an outlier (or rogue...) while at OY2 the C2 winner (a rogue on that course if ever I saw one) by 11 minutes with another 13 mins between 2nd and 3rd, is not treated as an outlier??

Show Profile  jeffg Posted: 26 June 2012, 6:26 PM  
I'm sorry John, I have to take issue with your statement that you're open to suggestions. There was little evidence of this from the experiences of the OY discussion group. However, good on you for having a go at sorting out some OY rules. With over 40 age class divisions this year the competition will probably get spread too thinly, but the course-based competition should be OK. You'd probably better come up with a consistent way of identifying outliers, or you'll have an argument every time someone runs down through injury, lateness, whatever.

To avoid violating mcroxford's 2nd cardinal rule I'll offer to do the OY rules/results next year should someone be needed.


1   2   3  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz