Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6  

Nationals 2011

Show Profile  jackabi Posted: 14 April 2011, 3:11 PM  
Start times are now available on the website.


or if you are lazy...

Long -

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 14 April 2011, 10:11 PM  
I thought it was a little suspicious when Ross was last starter in the middle...and then I flicked to the classic...

Four theories: 1) coincidence 2) setting it up for the last gasp hometown win 3) Ross entered late and they banged him on the back of the field 4) the start timesfor all races were allocated by using the fields for the sprint which Ross isn't entering.

IMHO this needs fixing.


Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 14 April 2011, 10:19 PM  
ah wtf I'm a bit slow, this is about rankings.

As an unfit no chance senior elite I can only speak for fairness and transparency in our sport by saying what a complete crock of shit:-)

Is there rules about this sort of thing?

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 14 April 2011, 10:51 PM  
Here is a couple of NZOF rules

12.6 The race Controller shall ensure the fairness of the start draw. 12.7 Providing that fairness is maintained, organisers may restrict start times (e.g. Run 21Es after other classes have finished, or start NZ v Australian team members before others in the same class).

Note that their does seem to be an explicit exception in 12.7 for classes of racers, eg ANZ Challenge team members...which I would interpret as largely designed to provide fairness within the ANZ subset of the competition....I would suggest it is a push to expand this logic to advantaging WRE ranked athletes in a race where they are clearly competing as part of the general field.

I would also suggest that WRE ranking is completely irrelevant to the nature and existing mana of the Nationals competition.

In terms of rule 12.6 I can't see how deciding to adopt WRE rankings unilaterally (my apologies if there has been some consultation to this) which coincidentally advantage local runners can possibly be regarded as promoting fairness of the start draw.

Was the event controller privvy to this start draw?

My expectation is that someone will chuck an IOF rule at me, if you do please give me some background as to why this takes precedence over NZOF rules.

Just stirring the pot really, but you've got to keep these things straight up and down:-)

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 14 April 2011, 11:43 PM  
I'll throw in an IOF guideline for WRE's (which all three events are):

"The start draw for each (Men and Women) elite course should be based on the World Rankings as at a date determined by the organisers. The best ranked runner should start last on each elite course."

This explains the tail end of the elite grades. Chris, Tane, Tom and Greg will be well acquainted by the end of the weekend

However there is an anomaly in more other age grades. Looking at other grades the same (or very similar) start order is there for multiple events. What are the odds of starting 4 people in the same order in consecutive events? Someone should've bought a lotto ticket last week...

Keep stirring Jamie, you are right to question these start lists. And enjoy fences on your maps

This message was edited by Martin on 15 April 2011, 1:04 AM

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 14 April 2011, 11:56 PM  
Is there any reason for selecting a very recent ranking date? A large number of NZ ranking points expired at the start of April, due to the timing of WRE events in NZ. To work to within the full extent of the IOF guide it would have made much more sense to use rankings as at a slightly earlier date. (end of 2010 for example)

At mid-April 2011:
13 Men with rankings
12 Women

Including those with points expired 2 April 2011:
67 Men
25 women

This message was edited by Martin on 15 April 2011, 12:58 AM

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 15 April 2011, 11:21 AM  
I thought one of the Labour weekend events last year was a WRE but it can't have been as then more people would still have some WRE points???

Show Profile  jeffg Posted: 15 April 2011, 12:53 PM  
Non-random grouping across events in some of the other classes may be a result of parents' split start time requests.

Jamie and Martin do make points worthy of discussion. I don't think a seeded elite start list is necessarily a bad thing for Nationals, provided there is depth and validity to the method of seeding. Unfortunately the recent ranking date does trim the depth considerably. The World Ranking section of the IOF website is sooooo much more informative than it used to be, and can be searched by date for historical ranking lists. Therefore there would seem to be few barriers to choosing an inclusive WR cutoff date for Nationals start list seedings.

As for validity of WR data in NZ, maybe that should go on another thread. There are probably enough WREs in Australia and here every year for elites to build up representative rankings, but travel costs money, and I'm not sure how high WR sits on the priority pecking order of current elites. Well, you've got 3 WREs coming up, so go to it, especially if Nationals are on your home turf next year!

Show Profile  Lizzie Posted: 15 April 2011, 1:12 PM  
I'll add my voice to those above. The idea of a seeded start isn't a bad thing, however it's pretty much redundant when applied to only 3 or 4 runners. Especially if those competitors are ranked more on how many WRE events they've managed to get to in the last year rather than their performances in said races. (Of the three ranked runners in W21E, not one of us even has the complete 4 contributing races!)

I notice the guideline Martin quoted above states the start lists "should" be based on rankings, not "must". Surely it would be fairer to just have a random start draw, or as suggested take an earlier ranking where more runners have rankings?

Show Profile  darren Posted: 15 April 2011, 6:22 PM  
I don't disagree with ranking the starts but maybe it would make more sense to base it on something like the Super Series results or National rankings instead of World Rankings. We all know that you can boost your world ranking if you are fortunate to get to enough WRE's, but this ranking doesn't always translate evenly to national rankings.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 15 April 2011, 8:16 PM  
The start order might affect one or two results, most likely among the randomly drawn people than the seeded ones I think.

More interestingly, I wonder if the ranking points that people will earn, will properly reflect their performances. In broad terms, the results are scaled based on the results of already-ranked runners, so that the points earned can be compared with points from other events throughout the world. But if most of the already-ranked runners (here in NZ) have only 3, 2 or 1 ranking results, their ranking doesn't reflect their ability and the resulting maths will be all wrong won't it?

I was looking at the Ski-O ranking recently. They count the best 5 events, but take the AVERAGE of them for the ranking. So a person with 1 WRE can be compared with others who have 5. Perhaps this arises from having fewer WREs, and I think that events may often have to be cancelled if the snow or weather aren't right. Basing a ranking on a single event might be dodgy statistically, but it may be the lesser evil.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 15 April 2011, 10:27 PM  
There ain't many voices piping up to say that the start lists as they stand should stay.....

In the parlance of spot prize draws......."RE DRAW, REDRAW!"

Show Profile  Keith Posted: 16 April 2011, 2:14 AM  
Redraw? You'd risk Brent losing his dunces postion in the long.

Show Profile  DMjunior Posted: 16 April 2011, 11:47 AM  
get over it, who cares where you start, if you catch someone they suck and if you get caught then you suck

Show Profile  rob.g Posted: 16 April 2011, 2:47 PM  
If there is tracking, start order can mean a lot, so a random draw should have been had for everyone.

I'm with Jamie on this one.

1   2   3   4   5   6  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions