EEC Ref-Grp: World Gamess 2005

Alistair Posted: 1 September 2003, 7:06 PM   The following has been received from the EEC committee for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2005 WORLD GAMES The International World Games Association (IWGA) has determined to include three orienteering events in the programme of the 2005 World Games in Duisburg, Germany. The programme is similar to that one of the 2001 World Games, i.e. an individual event for both men and women, and a mixed team relay. The IOF has been allotted a total number of 80 athletes, i.e. 40 men and 40 women. At its meeting held on 9 August 2003, the IOF Council has approved the Elite Events Commission’s (EEC) proposal for qualification procedure as follows: 1. The host nation (Germany) shall have the right to enter 2 + 2 runners. 2. The eleven (11) best nations, Germany excluded, in the 2004 World Orienteering Championship relay, ranked by adding the placing of each nation's both teams (i.e. men and women), shall have the right to enter 2 + 2 runners. 3. The results of the 2004 WOC Sprint Final and the Middle Distance Final shall be used to fill 11 + 11 places. The nations are assigned slots according to a ranking list compiled by adding each nation's best place in the Sprint to the best place in the Middle Distance, the second best place in the Sprint to the second best place in the Middle Distance etc., for men and women separately. The maximum number of runners per nation is, however, restricted to 3 + 3 (including the places assigned under 1 and 2). 4. In addition to the limit of 3 + 3 runners per nation, the 2004 World Champions on Sprint, Middle Distance and Long Distance have a personal place. 5. The EEC is authorized to allocate the remaining places up to the total of 40 + 40 runners.   Alistair Posted: 1 September 2003, 7:15 PM   Personally I don't have much to say about this. Some observations: 1. I guess most NZers will be focusing on Japan in 2005 so Europe will be out that year. 2. We probably wouldn't qualify from WOC anyway - pity for Tania at the moment who could make the 40 cut. 3. Brings up the old issue of forcing people to go to WOC every year - now that WOC will be used as qualification to another event - ie: no other altenative qualification method. 4. The World Games is still a bit of a non-event - has all those great sports like cheesecake frisbee - guess Hank'll be going anyway ;-)   HeadHoncho Posted: 1 September 2003, 11:54 PM   Al, Qualification systems that end up with someone having the right to decide on a whim who should end up with the remaining places are not ideal IMO. Using this years WOC as an example (and the women): top 11 relay nations: SUI, SWE, NOR, LTU, CZE, GBR, POL, RUS, AUT, ITA, FRA - note absence of FIN, DEN and AUS 11 places using results: SUI, SWE, NOR, FIN x 2, GBR, POL, AUS, ROM, LTU, ESP Only 1 world champion. Therefore field would be: SUI x 4, (SWE, NOR, LTU, GBR, POL) x 3, (CZE, RUS, AUT, ITA, FRA, FIN, GER) x 2, AUS, ROM, ESP, + 4 "wild cards" (up from expected 2 thanks to SImone) Compating this theoretical field against actual middle/sprint results from WOC shows the qualification sysytem to be flawed, and of course it is affecting the borderline nations such as ourselves. For example ITA - who had one qualifier in the middle (48th) and their sole sprint rep got DQ'd, gets two places while nations such as DEN (35th middle, 11th sprint), EST (20th middle, 29th sprint), SVK (22nd middle, 27th sprint), UKR (27th middle, 24th sprint), and of course NZL (30th middle, 21st sprint) miss out on even getting one place. Seems stupid, how nations such as ITA could get 2 places when their best runner is at best on a par with the best runners from DEN, NZL etc who get no places. A much fairer system would be using the relay to allocate 1+1 place and using the middle/sprint places to allocate a further 2+2 places max for the strong nations leaving more spots for the middle nations to battle it out. While the World Games are not big on our radar screen I think we have a duty to argue principles if we spot any flaws in any proposed qual sysytem, and I think this proposal is flawed for the potential effect on the middle nations.   Alistair Posted: 2 September 2003, 11:17 AM   Great comments Rob, I hadn't analysed the situation at all as have been too busy moving house. Will definitely pass your analysis on. Thanks.