Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7  

Someone got DSQ'd

Show Profile  Wetfish Posted: 16 April 2004, 10:15 PM  
Someone got DSQ'd, but they still got all the right controls...

Something funny is going on.

Show Profile  Jenni Posted: 17 April 2004, 8:28 AM  
I believe at least one person got dsqed for not going to the start triangle.

Show Profile  Dave Mcc Posted: 21 April 2004, 12:41 PM  
thats not all. ohv team that got 3rd in the relays dsqed too. bit of a shame

Show Profile  Wetfish Posted: 21 April 2004, 6:03 PM  
considering you had a M18/M20 who is a member of the d squad running second leg are you at all surprised?

Show Profile  Wetfish Posted: 21 April 2004, 6:37 PM  
"OHV Relay Team Stripped of Third Place, 20 Apr 04
The third-placed national relay team of Andrew McCarthy, Jason van Dyk and Dave King has been stripped of its third place in the NZ Relay Champs. It seems that 19-year-old van Dyk has been ruled ineligible for for leg 2. While the rules say "no M18A - 50A", Technical Committee interpretations of two years ago distinguished "A" from "A-Short" which van Dyk ran on the previous day. (This latest interpretation would also bar van Dyk from leg 3 and require him to run leg 1 against the M21Es.) In actual fact OHV's next-best team should be disqualified instead, with M18A Richard Glover on leg 2."

Well if he's a 21AS why the hell is he in the D-Squad?

Show Profile  Jenni Posted: 22 April 2004, 9:29 AM  
I hadn't realized AS was distinguished differently - I asked Stuart Payne and he said he thought he remembered the decision being based purely on age class with only B grades (and W21A distinguished from E) making a difference. I think this really is the fairest thing to do seeing the relay course lengths are quite short. So I also don't think W21A should be distinguished from E.

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 22 April 2004, 9:48 AM  
You guys call over 5km short?

Show Profile  onemanfanclub Posted: 22 April 2004, 11:22 AM  
A few years back I was part of a team of 3 x M21AS which wasn't DQ'd. Admittedly we didn't trouble the top teams at all. But I think I have to agree that M&W21 should mean M&W21 regardless of grade, otherwise the system is open to abuse. As in elites unlikely to win individual races running 21AS or 21B in the classic on club instructions so they qualify for any leg in the relay. But perhaps first leg of the short relay could also be made open, so genuine A-shorties and Bs who don't want to be still gasping around the first leg when the race has been won do have another option.

HOWEVER: the big question is whether the rules, or more importantly the "current interpretations" are made clearly available to the people putting together teams. I remember the first few years of these relays, each club was issued with a list of the members of their club who were available. This seems to have died out, but if reinstated it would be easy enough to include a reminder of age restrictions, and seeing as entry forms always include year of birth, why not include that as well so that there's no excuse for misinterpretation? Ideally teams would be checked for legality as they are entered, but that's probably too much to ask of organisers at this point.

Another grey area to clear up is what exactly counts as NZ residency. Otherwise WHEN (teeheee) Hutt Valley wins next year, I can see this argument being raised by whoever's 2nd....

Show Profile  Jenni Posted: 22 April 2004, 12:07 PM  
"You guys call over 5km short?"
This year the lengths for M21E, A and AS in the classic (long) were 15.4km, 9.8km and 6.0km respectively so everyone in these grades should have been able to cope with leg 1 of the Mixed long relays which was 5.6km...?

"Another grey area to clear up is what exactly counts as NZ residency. Otherwise WHEN (teeheee) Hutt Valley wins next year, I can see this argument being raised by whoever's 2nd...."

Stuart pointed to me the NZOF rules somewhere, can't remember where, which explained residency to be as defined by NZ immigration as permanent residency status (ie not work permit status which gives you the right to work and live in NZ for x years and is much cheaper and easier to get than permanent residency being why Carsten and Sara are currently (well up to a week ago for Carsten) *living* here with that status. And, apart from NZ Orienteering champs, a work permit gives you almost all the same rights as permanent residency does.) I have been an official member of relay teams in both the British relay champs and Swedish relay champs when I was living in Britain and Sweden with only student permit and work permit status respectively. Relays are great for club spirit and I don't enjoy being the selector when I have to exclude from official teams active members of the club who are living in New Zealand. (Contrary to what MJW's webpage about Carsten says, Carsten was living here for the last 18 months as far as the official places in Denmark were concerned, and only spent 6 weeks in Europe last year. It used to be closer to the truth to say he "lived part of the year" (like around half) here but not over the last 18 months. Now he lives in Denmark and maybe I will as well soon.

Stuart has suggested that I suggest an amendment to the current relay rules seeing I have openly criticized this rule, and one day, when I have the time I might.

Right now I've just used my lunch time on this and Greg will be complaining that I have written a novel (- how many lines defines a novel for you Greg?) so I better get back to work.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 22 April 2004, 2:52 PM  
Lets just say I saw my name and the rest I can't be bothered reading

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 22 April 2004, 5:39 PM  
Mark Lawson ran in the M21E grade for the classic the previous day but then ran leg 3 on the relay which has the restrictions no M21E.

Ummm, yeah considering this team also won I think that they should be DSQed. Where do you draw the line? If someone is running M21E then surely that means that they are M21E and can't run courses which say no M21E. Seems like a no brainer to me!

Show Profile  Wetfish Posted: 22 April 2004, 7:43 PM  
Remember 2000 Nationals?


1 Ross Morrison HB 74.18

2 Graeme Hattie CM 80.45

3 Greg Flynn WACO 85.09

4 Todd Oates HB 94.00

5 Michael Smithson PAPO 95.29

6 Bryn Davies RK 98.06

7 David Stewart A 99.06

8 James Bradshaw W 100.41

Well then Ross went on to run the second leg of mixed long, as he was still only first year M16. Just because he ran M18 on the previous day shouldn't invalidate him from changing back to his legitimate grade.

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 23 April 2004, 7:32 AM  
I think your main point in that last post is how bad James Bradshaw is.

Show Profile  Jenni Posted: 23 April 2004, 9:39 AM  
As far as age distinctions go, I really don't think what grade you run in individual races should matter at all for the relays, what should matter is your actual age. Mark is too good for the other M40s! I guess he wants to see how he compares against M21Es in the individual but give his club the best chance of winning the relay by running the leg he is entitled, through his age, to run. This is the rule that the NZOF general manager told me was agreed upon for the realys and I agree with them!

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 23 April 2004, 11:19 AM  
Those results show that when we are identifying junior talent we should not only focus on their results now, but also other personal attributes which will help a junior turn into a successful elite.

Mark, Ross and Jason should all be able to run for their club on the course their age reflects. They should also be able to run for themselves on the course their ability reflects.

D-Squad members should not be running A-Short or B grades.

Whereas National Squad members are sometimes justified in running A-Long in a classic if that is not their strength. (serious)


Show Profile  jeffg Posted: 23 April 2004, 11:30 AM  
As was outlined by Jenni, Mark Lawson is an M40 this year. He also just happens to be one of the best orienteers in the country. In addition, if someone is running M21E in NZ that does not necessarily mean they are elite standard. New Zealand doesn't yet have rules that qualify eligibility for elite grades. So age remains the best standard for relay classes. Let's cut the whining and get training. Gulp, I guess that means me too. This fantastic NW team will presumably be back next year, unless of course Thomas Reynolds gets too quick for Dave Middleton!
In my opinion the best single improvement to the current format would be to give women running 1st leg mixed long a handicap start. I'm sure this idea has floated around for some time now, but maybe to gain acceptance it needs an objective formula. How about taking the average time difference between the fastest man and fastest woman (leg 1 mixed long) for the previous three years of relays and make that the handicap for the next year? Does anyone think that this would have a chance of flying if presented to the NZOF?

1   2   3   4   5   6   7  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions