An insight into the IOF mechanics by Jan

I have to say I am disappointed by the Council's decision here. Everybody I talked to in Vuokatti, except Council members, wanted to have some sort of qualification from 2014 and on - at least for the middle distance. I've talked to officials from several countries, athletes, members of the athletes commission, and so on. I heard that this was also the general opinion in the discussion at the President's conference (although I wasn't there, but I talked to several people being there). As I understood, the Council said that it had to do this based on the decision to remove the qualification races at the General assembly in 2013. However, I am sure there would have been a way around this based on all the feedback received. E.g. removing the qualification races and introducing "low key qualification races" would still be to follow the General assembly's request as I see it. No worse than turning the decision of a mass start from Trondheim in 2010 into a chasing start in the suggested program and later exchanging it for a mixed relay. This is very unfortunate for the development of orienteering, and I think (based on my conversations with athletes) that you will see quite a few athletes from smaller countries giving up high-level elite orienteering rather than becoming sprint specialists - which is what they are forced to now.

 Jan Kocbach on facebook

(Jan did not even mention the shear ignorance the council meet the federations hearing replies, which he wrote about here )

IOF-Divisions after WOC 2013 (Men)

I calculated the divisions for the WOC 2014 as proposed by the IOF foot o commission earlier this year. At the men side this years WOC in Finland brought the following changes:

1. Ukraine falls into the second division in exchange for Russia stepping up
2. Slovakia, Australia and Romania drop out of the second division in favor of Spain, Portugal and Germany. So there are only European countries left in the first two divisions.

Here is the ranking

fig.1. Inofficial IOF Divisions for the men after WOC 2013.

Analysis WOC 2013 Long Final Women (Packfigures & Separation Measure)

Thanks to Jan Kocbach for providing me with the results according to the IOF Data Standard.

Packfigures
Packfigures is perspective on the championships competitions, giving an overview on the number, duration and effect of packs mostly as a result of the organizational measures taken. The concept of the caluclations is described here. There you also find for example figures from all WOC Long Finals since 1999 plus the one from 1995.

Here are the packfigures from the WOC 2013 Long Finals. (scroll down for the women)

fig.1. Screenshot packfigures WOC 2013 Long Finals

Comments Womens Final

fig.2. Phi-Loop with two uneven loops. Separation measure WOC 2013 Long Distance Women

• 2 min. start intervall
• reverse start order based on the qualification results
• the course setting was described as "more intresting than the mens course with some tricky controls" (Lena Eliasson on orienteering.se)
• A separation measure was applied, beginning at the 14 control, after 70% of the course consisting in a Phi-Loop with two wings very different in size (2.20 vs. 15.20 minutes). The phi is resolved at the 21 control after 94% of the course.
• The measure was set up to separate two consecutive runners.
• the first 4 packs build around the 2 control, after around 13% of the course
• 2 runners have over 50% pack time (Sluta, Raaityte)
• Generally there are no bigger gains and no longer cooperation among the top runners. Indeed extraordinary many loose time in packs.
• The phi separated 3 groups, 5 groups persevered and 2 new groups where built.
• An aspect of the small loop is, that there is the risk that runners which ran approx. the same speed until the measure are grouped by the introduced offset of about the start intervall.

Roundup
The womens competition was rather little influenced by packs and extraordinary many packs seem to be linked with time-loss. The reason for that might be, that pack building was related to the partly higher technical difficulty/lower visibility. The separation method worked to separate three rather uneven packs, but was at the same time source of new packs and the potential risk of a top pack was even higher than at the mens class.

Analysis WOC 2013 Long Finals Men (Packfigures & Separation Measure)

Thanks to Jan Kocbach for providing me with the results according to the IOF Data Standard.

Packfigures
Packfigures is perspective on the championships competitions, giving an overview on the number, duration and effect of packs mostly as a result of the organizational measures taken. The concept of the caluclations is described here. There you also find for example figures from all WOC Long Finals since 1999 plus the one from 1995.

Here are the packfigures from the WOC 2013 Long Finals.

fig.1. Screenshot packfigures WOC 2013 Long Finals

Comments Mens Final

fig.2. Phi-Loop with two uneven loops. Separation measure WOC 2013 Long Distance Men

• 2 min. start intervall
• reverse order from the qualification result
• the course setting was described as "very fast, not so challenging technically, so it was a lot about keeping a high pace and being sure to keep this pace until the end. It was more about setting the speed than finding the controls" (Thierry on orienteering.se)
• A separation measure was applied, beginning at the 20 control, after 72% of the course consisting in a Phi-Loop with two wings very different in size (2.30 vs. 20 minutes). The phi is resolved at the 31 control after 96% of the course. This measure is pretty much the same as the on applied at the WOC 2011 Long Finals
• The measure was set up to separate two consecutive runners.
• the first 4 packs build around the 4 control, after around 17% of the course
• 4 runners have over 50% pack time (Krepsta, Simonin, Diogo and Kums)
• Generally there are no big gains and no longer cooperation among the top runners.
• The phi separated 7 groups, 2 groups persevered and 3 new groups where build.
• An aspect of the small loop is, that there is the risk that runners which ran approx. the same speed until the measure are grouped by the introduced offset of about the start intervall as Holmberg and Merz or Lakanen and Bertuks later on the longer loop.
• A last aspect of the measure is, that runners get in direct contact with their competitors. Merz stated, that to see that he was not so much behind Hubmann encouraged him to push on the last legs.

Roundup
The mens competition was only little influenced by packs. The main reason for this is probably the course setting. The separation method worked in general, but had a potentially high build-in risk to influence the podium.

WOC 2013 and IOF Data Standard Version 3.0

It seems like the IOF is unable to push its own Data Standard.

fig.1. The results as provided by the organiser

I stated earlier that i will not longer calculate pack-figures under such conditions.

Jukola Top 50 from the WOC 2013 selections perspective

"Bonus-Sprint" a minimum impact high efficient separation method

I used my swedish clubs championships last weekend for a test of my new favorite separation method. The method belongs to the so long ignored group of "situate methods" and is related to Jarkko Ryyppös Dead Running.

fig.1. Scheme of the Bonus-Sprint. The red runner gets separated from the blue by being sent to an extra control. In return he gets 20 seconds drawn from his total running time.


Method
At a control point runners catched up by runners started later have to leave their map at the control and run to an another control  along a marked route (not on the map), approximately 10s jogging away from the first control before returning and continuing the race. For running this extra loop, the will get 20s substracted from their total running time. 

Benefits
- As a situative method it separates all pack-leaders from their pack.
- It makes the top of the result list fairer. The misfit for catched up runners is minimal (having to run 80m more than leaders and solo runners, and losing/wining minimal time thereby) alike a catched up competitor at a cycling time trial.
- It is a minimal measure in regard to the course setting.

Misfits
- We get finally rid of all kind of  lepidotera :-P
- It does not separate the rest of the pack

Details
The measure can be implemented to run automatically, basing on the splits at the control just before the "Bonus-Sprint"-control. For example all runners punchning between 10s ahead and 15s behind the designated pack-leader (started last) will be sent to the Bonus-Sprint. The time the Bonus-Sprint shall take should belong to the visibility out of the control. The time gap produced with the method should be so big, that the pack permanently looses contact to the designated pack leader.

The measure should be applied after 50% and 75% of the course.


Test Centrum OK KM Lång 2013
To make it short: The test failed due to the lack of packs. To big the differences in the competitors performances and additionally a course with real long distance qualities...  To really test the measure it would need a more even starter field.* 

---

* In 2011 I tried to invite the Competition Commission of Swiss Orienteering to use the national series as a test field for new separation measures, but I did not insist enough.