maptalk.co.nz News   |   Events   |   Forum   |   Photos   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3  

club relays

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 6 November 2006, 12:39 PM  
i know im a bit late in bringing this up seeing that the rules have already been passed by the council,
but to me the new club relay rules just look like they favour 1 particular club at the expense of others.
Also how is the 'composite club' rule going to be administered. For example will Egmmont be able to share neil and karl with other woa club by putting some club members onto the mixed short so that they do not have sufficient numbers. also could north west and counties for example happen to have mark, tania and jourdan, for example, left over after they have made up their other teams and have a gun composite team.

and is it just me, or have the relays lately relied a lot more on leg two and three runners than the first leg? yes clubs without a top elite have to come off the back foot, but really are those clubs going to challenge the top clubs anyway?


Show Profile  Martin Posted: 6 November 2006, 1:15 PM  
have you read the rationale for suggestions?

to make an official composite team, my interpretyation would be both clubs needed to be "small clubs", that is less than 30 members in the club. Which rules out the NW & CM scenario.

My only gripe about the rules changes would be the part of determining what class a competitor qualifies for. The suggestion is the class that was entered for the long distance championship. Why not include the Middle dist also?? Aren't the relay legs (& EWT) more akin to a middle distance anyways?

Why not focus your energy on something that isn't a lost cause?
1. Additional course - new course for men 80 and over and women 70 and over. Similar theory to the relay changes, and endorsed in principle. Old people struggle to climb fences, do lots of climb and fight through thick vegetation.

2. Expected winning times - reducing course 1 from 105 to 90 min. and changing how other course winning times relate to this course

Hasn't all this stuff been sent around by the technical committee a few months ago for comment? Clubs agreed and then the TC sent it to council. So why is it back here again for comment when nothing has changed?

This message was edited by Martin on 6 November 2006, 12:19 PM

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 6 November 2006, 1:23 PM  
"Why not focus your energy on something that isn't a lost cause? "

Thats great more courses with even more minuscule differences between them and changing a percentage into a value.

Sounds like lost causes to me.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 6 November 2006, 3:05 PM  
Do your own thinking at some stage Martin

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 6 November 2006, 3:35 PM  
My own thoughts are in there, at the top and bottom.

The middle bit - with the two bullets, isn't a view but simply a statement of what is currently up for discussion. There's more chance of constructive changes coming out of those given that there's still time to put it to the council before it either gets set in stone or sent to the grave.

Show Profile  SimonB Posted: 6 November 2006, 4:11 PM  
why not change the structure to sprint, long, relay, middle; it'll give old people a chance to rest after the long and enviously watch the young uns zoom around. entertainment for all!!

Show Profile  addison Posted: 6 November 2006, 5:09 PM  
In a way it is a view otherwise you would not have posted it.

Think before you print!

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 6 November 2006, 5:43 PM  
Yes the rules for the relay seem to favour one club. But thats why every other club needs to put their best team foward and beat them even if it does mean breaking up a family team (yes I do mean the Morrison team). That way they will go back to the drawing board. I know why you bought this up Thomas - cos you won't be in the number 1 relay team for NWOC.

Show Profile  James Posted: 6 November 2006, 6:02 PM  
I might just be really blond, stupid, oblivious or all 3! But which club does this new rule seem to favour? Because i can think of a few clubs that could put forward some pretty kick ass teams..........HB, CM, HV, NW, W, H............Yes each team must have a female, and chances are due to the physical make up of females, it would make sense to have your female on a short leg, therefore any club with a speedy junior girl could achieve the win in my eyes............

I like the idea of having to include a female, because in the past not many winning teams have had a female, and i think it opens it up a bit more??

Has the first leg ever really had an influence on the overall result? Since i've been attending nationals i cant think of a time when an outstanding run by a first leg team member has resulted in a win?? (but i may be wrong?)

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 6 November 2006, 9:27 PM  
Well then why didnt you point out that leg 1 doesnt influence the relay all that much to your fellow club members before they went ahead and pushed the changes - perhaps they should have increased the leg time not reduced it. But why would your club increase it because that is clearly your weakest leg. And no it makes no sense to have the Woman run on the short leg because they will in general lose more time to the boys on this leg than the elite women will to the boys on leg 3. But yes I hope that despite the changes there will still be a competitive relay. One thing is for sure there will be a female in the official winning team.


This message was edited by Ellmo1769 on 6 November 2006, 8:34 PM

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 6 November 2006, 9:37 PM  
Thomas is right with his statement about legs2 and 3, did anyone writting the new rules actually look at the stats?

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 6 November 2006, 9:45 PM  
No

Show Profile  robbie Posted: 7 November 2006, 1:00 AM  
Yes greg. I have put six years into this project.The boys day out is all over. In 2007 a women will be in the winning team for the first time.You guys seem to self focus and have little regard for a fair relay.You could pick a winner out of three.Not now.James is correct the leg two women might a winner but maybe an elite women against m18 m40 on leg three. Who knows.Thomas read the rules cm and nw cannot combine. only clubs of30 or less can join a club from the same region. This was a request from them.

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 7 November 2006, 8:04 AM  
No James is wrong. Do not try to tell me that you think Tania will lose more time to Jourdan on leg 3 than Greta will to Jourdan on leg 2. Therefore it is most likely that the winning team will include a World class elite woman and we all know how many of them there are in the country. I seem to recall Greg pointing out a time when an elite woman had a chance of winning a national relay but didnt have the team to back them up?? But the real question is have the rule changes annoyed you enough to run the relay Greg??

Show Profile  Tane Cambridge Posted: 7 November 2006, 10:21 AM  
Just a point that may need clarification...may be related may not...
one of the changes allows mergers of small clubs of 30 or less for the relay, right?
Does this mean clubs with 30 people competing at the nationals that year or 30 people in the entire club?

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 7 November 2006, 10:21 AM  
I've got no problem with the new rule about the women Robbie, its the lack of proof behind the statement that first leg was determining the winner.

I love running relays, what I dont like running is a cross country race after 3 days of hard orienteering when no matter where I finish it plays little part on my teams result.


1   2   3  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz