Discussion: WOC promotion and relegation

Now that action moves into the forest, there's going to be a certain amount of attention (especially in the non-European orienteering world) going to the competition within the competition - the promotion and relegation between the 3 groups that define each country's long and middle distance entry allocations. We can probably figure out from the start lists (or dig up last year's thread) to see who is currently in each group, but is there someone (looking at you, Blair!) with their finger enough on the pulse to remind us who is currently closest to gaining another runner at next year's WOC, or most at risk at losing one? Any resulting AUS/NZL/USA/CAN banter/sledging/bagging also welcome in this thread!

In addition to a list of who's in what category, can someone provide the rules for promotion and relegation?

Here are the rules http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03...


And the 2015 National Rankings:

• Women


• Men

Ukraine men are very likely to be relegated to division 2. They have the fewest points for 2014 of all the division 1 teams, they've only got 3 runners this year (Ushkvarok and Shcherbakov could not come) so everybody will have to run everything, Kratov and Panchenko are not in the best shape this year and while Glebov had some good results he has a minor injury (got a cut on his leg a couple of weeks ago that needed a few stitches). They did not run sprint and sprint relay, so that may help a bit, but still, it's a long shot.

Actually, the system seems a bit unfair to newly promoted teams like Ukraine. Two last years count (2014 and 2015), but in 2014 they had two runners while the rest of division 1 had three, so, all other things being equal, they would get fewer points. Or have I misunderstood something?

Council's adopted a tweak to the system to address the "newly promoted" problem at its meeting yesterday. Since I don't think they've yet formally announced that decision it's not for me to broadcast the details on AP (yet).

(and, now that I know what the rules are actually going to be, I can start doing the calculations).

I didn't check the start list yet. Are any changes to the rules?

so from the NZ perspective, after the women's middle, looking good to keep tier 2 status - increased the gap over the also newly promoted Japan and gained significant ground on USA and Italy, and to a lesser extent Germany. A good start.

In women's division 2, it looks like Ukraine's got the most points from the middle, followed by Latvia, and the US got the least.

In division 1, Great Britain got the least points, despite Taylor's 5th place.

Men:
div. 1: least Russia, then Ukraine (Glebov mispunched, damn)
div. 2: least Ireland, then Belarus; most GBR, then Estonia
div. 3: most New Zealand, then Spain

I think (repeating myself from last year) that the promotion / relegation battles are a missed opportunity to build hype and excitement throughout the WOC races. The current coverage is basically "we will watch a bunch of people that don't have a chance to win but who will beat down the tough terrain and make tracks to the controls while we wait for the really exciting stuff to come a little bit later". I realize the production teams are stretched to their limits, but even a little bit of talk about which division the runners are from would add some interest - and even more if they could point out that a good run will increase chances of moving up, or a bad mistake might drop them to the lower division. One or two graphics showing the nation tables...

This is good stuff - it would be nice to exploit it a little more.

Perhaps MChub could send a little precis to Alba TV? ;-)

The tweak is now published: http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08.... The change is that, for the results from last year, Division 1 countries will only count their best 2 (rather than 3) results, and Division 2 countries their best (rather than best 2) results, so as to be fair to newly promoted countries who only had 2 (or 1) runners last year. For 2015 results, the best 3/2/1 runners for division 1/2/3 countries will count as before (in most cases this will be all of their spots, except for countries who get extra spots through World/Regional Champion or host spots).

Unofficial points tally as of the end of the middle (I haven't double-checked these yet) under the new rules, covering 2014 points plus 2015 middle:

Men:

Bottom of div 1 (1 to go down): UKR 305, RUS 332, FIN 387
Top of div 2 (1 to go up): GBR 278, AUT 268, EST 260, DEN 214
Bottom of div 2 (2 to go down): IRL 39, BLR 125, HUN 132, AUS 141, GER 150
Top of div 3 (2 to go up): ESP 101, BEL 81, NZL 79, SVK 78, ROM 55, POR 55

Women:

Bottom of div 1: LAT 285, CZE 363, RUS 445
Top of div 2: GBR 300, UKR 236, LTU 222, FRA 214, AUS 201
Bottom of div 2: JPN 25, ITA 98, USA 113, GER 137. (For slow-twitch's benefit, I haven't forgotten NZ - they're in midfield on 180)
Top of div 3: HUN 115, ESP 107, POR 51, BUL 33, SVK 33, BLR 31

Relays tomorrow could mix things up a bit - partly because a good team mispunching and getting zero points really drops them down, but also because, say, a 15th place from a division 3 team can give them a big jump on their rivals. That said, for the women the only thing which seems in really serious doubt is the second relegation spot from division 2. For the men it's much more uncertain.

By the way, we did feed info to the commentators last year on the promotion/relegation battles, but it didn't get used.

Thanks Blair.
Also it is great to see these rules on the Orienteering.org foot-O rules page.

One thing that would also be helpful would be to make the "divisions of nations" table more obvious on the site too. I can never find it

reiterating thanks to Blair. One thing that handicaps NZ men's efforts, even if they get more results like Matt's in the middle, is that they've lost more 2013 points than the countries that were also near the top of the division going into this year. But if they can't make it this year (losing Tim from the relay might be a bit of a blow, but Gene is no slouch to have subbing in) then at least I think they'll be building up the base substantially. The Aus/NZ swap might have to wait a year!

Unexpectedly, Ukraine men finished ahead of Russia (and Finland) in the relay, so now the scores at the bottom of div 1 are UKR 385, RUS 388, FIN 459 (if my calculations are correct) and only 3 points separate Ukraine from Russia! A great run by Glebov for Ukraine, by the way, I think he was 2nd fastest on leg 3, faster than his Ravinen clubmate Bergman and Kyburz and only a few seconds slower than Daehli!

For women div 1, Russia's mp is going to hurt, especially with LAT and CZE doing well, but probably not enough to save Latvia.

@blairtrewin thanks for the points!

Unofficial points as of the end of the relay:

Men

Div 1 lower: UKR 385, RUS 388, FIN 459
Div 2 upper: GBR 392, EST 360, AUT 352

(note that if the second-best div 2 country outscores the second-worst div 1, two countries go up and two down; this would have to be a theoretical possibility, although for Estonia to outscore Russia by 28 with one less runner is still a big ask)

Div 2 lower: IRL 67, BLR 161, AUS 165, ITA 186, GER 194
Div 3 upper: ESP 153, NZL 139, BEL 121, SVK 98

Looks like a two-way fight for one relegation place here, and a three-way fight for two promotion places, though the Belgian (is it Yannick?) would need to beat the New Zealander by 19 places, or the Spaniard by 33.

Women

Div 1 lower: LAT 381, RUS 445, CZE 463
Div 2 upper: GBR 388, FRA 306, LTU 298, UKR 296

Hard to see anything other than a LAT-GBR swap here.

Div 2 lower: JPN 41, ITA 126, USA 157 (no others below 200)
Div 3 upper: HUN 199, ESP 179, POR 75

Also pretty clear-cut unless an Italian woman does something well beyond anything they've shown so far (and Ali has a bad day). Hungary are promoted no matter what, and Spain will only miss out if Portugal or Slovakia win gold on Friday (and they fail to score much themselves), which probably isn't going to happen. (However, the US's low scores so far in 2015 will mean, unless they have a good day in the long, they will be carrying forward the lowest points tally of any 2016 division 2 country and so will be under pressure to stay up next year).

Seems like an easier fix would be to exempt last year's promoted/relegated teams from this year's promotion/relegation. If I understand the current fix correctly, it still puts the newly promoted teams at a slight disadvantage, as they don't get to throw away results, and similarly the newly relegated teams are at a slight advantage.

a good day for the ukrainian men, a bad one for the russians... looks like good news for the former? and the NZ men are secure for promotion as far as I can tell

Men div 1: RUS out, GBR in
Men div 2: IRL, AUS out, ESP, NZL in (this one was pretty close between AUS and BLR)
Women div 1: LAT out, GBR in
Women div 2: JPN, ITA out, HUN, ESP in

If I understand correctly the updated rules the federations in Div1 will be able to use 10 best races from middle/long at WOC 2016 (2016/3+3 and 2015/2+2) and federations from Div2 promoted this year into Div1 also (3+3+2+2).

How about 2nd highest Federation in Div2. It looks that it is now even harder to beat 2nd lowest federation in Div1. (3+3+2+2) vs (2+2+1+1) compare with previous 12 vs 8 races. Should we have two calculations rules to equal also this issue?

Three lousy points....

sorry blair, but somebody had to make room for NZ...

And on top of the goings on at Trent Bridge as well.

Netball is going OK. Brits got US in swimming!!!

Australia won the important one though, the rugby against NZ. Good rugby played, good to watch.

The commentators don't have enough time to tell ud what is happening in the race. They didn't explain any of the relay splitting so I don't think they could have tme or explain simply all the relegation and promotion process.

@Tooms - just getting the token one loss per year out of the system before the world cup ;-)

Any chance we can see the full tables from this year and what the situation will look like for next year?

We swapped the rugby for netball.

I hope to do the maths in the near future (maybe tomorrow).
Ireland looking like a contender though for the bounce back, alongside Australia.

I've done all the calculations - but in a spreadsheet which will end up on the IOF site. Always useful to have an independent check of the numbers so if Colm can send me his that would be appreciated (e-mail is in my profile). At this very early stage, looks like a three-way race for two places between Ireland, Australia and Belgium.

Counting only 1 runner for each Division 2 / 3 country this year, and 2 for each division 1 country gave the following points, which will give an indication of who is in the fighting to get promoted / relegated again following 2016 in Sweden.

Men:

Div1:
Looks like Ukraine, Finland & Czech are all going to be battling it out for survival, a bad year for Britain could put them under pressure too.

SUI 590
FRA 477
NOR 416
SWE 332
GBR 293
CZE 278
UKR 263
FIN 257


Div2:
Estonia and Austria the main contenders for promotion, but it pretty much all comes down to next year, with a lot of teams in with a shout.
Italy, Belarus, Spain & Germany in a pretty tight 4-way battle where 2 will go down.

EST 187
AUT 174
LTU 160
LAT 156
BUL 156
DEN 142
HUN 118
RUS 114
POL 110
NZL 110
GER 80
ESP 77
BLR 71
ITA 70

Div3:
As Blair said, Belgium, Ireland, and Australia in a 3-way battle for promotion, this will be tight. Belgium with the advantage at the moment.

BEL 77
IRL 61
AUS 61
SVK 46
POR 36
CRO 29
CAN 16
JPN 16
USA 14
ROM 6
ISR 1

Women:

Div1:
Russia cost themselves pretty dearly with that mispunch in the relay, but if they were to repeat this year's performances aside from that, Czech and Britain could feel the heat.

DEN 506
SWE 446
NOR 417
FIN 350
SUI 316
GBR 289
CZE 262
RUS 238

Div2:
Latvia, Ukraine & France are pretty close at the moment at the top fighting for 1 promotion spot.
USA look destined for relegation, with 1 of Austria, Spain, Poland, Germany, Canada likely to join them.

LAT 179
UKR 173
FRA 173
LTU 156
EST 148
AUS 143
NZL 143
HUN 130
GER 115
CAN 114
ESP 111
POL 107
AUT 105
USA 66

Div3:
Ireland and Italy the lead-runners for these 2 spots promotion, but it's hard to say, because the Women's division 3 performances vary greatly from year to year.

IRL 53
ITA 50
BUL 37
POR 36
SVK 24
SLO 21
CHN 17
JPN 16

Excellent work Blair and Colm, thank you!

Div2:
ITA 70

Div3:
BEL 77

Is this a typo or should Belgium already been in Div 2?

@ColmM
Did you do also calculation for this year 14/15? If you have time can you please look what is the final score for 2nd lower Div1 and second highest Div2? and what it would have been in case of using for Div1 country same number of six best races + 2x relay races. Thanks.

Fly'n - those are the points from 2015 being carried forward to 2016.

@#*%ing piece of @#£* system. How is this going to make orienteering bigger/better/survive anywhere outside Europe?

With the switch to alternate Forest / Sprint years hopefully there will be room for a return to qualification races with equal qualification slots available to all countries. Places in the final earned by individual performance

Yeah. I personally wouldn't have a problem with eg Div 1 teams getting more places in the qualifications. As long as every nation gets a few, and every individual earns their spot in the final. Eg div 3 gets 3 spots like before, div 2 gets 4 like the old days (2001 was the last time I think?), and div 1 gets 5 spots...

not sure how many times I've mentioned to Blair that split woc is incompatible with a relagation system... ...and how no iof document mentions getting rid of the relegation system for a split woc

Spot on Larry.

It's early days. IOF only wanted to know at this stage whether federations supported the principle and are planning to come back with a more detailed plan in 2016.

I can't add much more to Shep's eloquent summary.

@£*% yeah.

They have already declared that there will be 1 qualification race in the Forest WOC.

They've also proposed that it will be middle that has qualification.
But they haven't said what happens with long, or whether each country has 3 places in the qualification again, or what.

As noted elsewhere, having 1 qualification race was not part of the formal motion which was passed at the meeting - that level of detail remains to be determined.

The new rules addressed the "newly promoted" problem -> as Blair said.

but there is still somehow an unfair rule which determinate the calculation of final score between 2nd lower Div1 and second highest Div2 or lower and similar between Div 2 and Div 3.

I made a test only for Div 1/2 based on 8x results from middle/long + 2x Relays. Same for all. The outcome is the same but the margin is just 1 point in UKR favor.

Men
FIN - 518 points
UKR - 484 points
AUT - 483 points
EST - 475 points

There are still at least 3 WOCs without the qualifications and to find out which countries deserve a 3rd or 2nd runner should be based on equal number of final results. Now countries can compete only within Division -> It feels like a closed league competition and not an absolute competition. It looks as unfinished calculation rule to me.

Like it was important to find a solution for "newly promoted" problem it is also important that IOF understand the problem which compromise fairness outside the automatic promotion/relegation system.

Long has more issues with following, or at least following issues are harder to avoid. Also there is lot more grass and low vegetation to stomp down with pre/test runners because courses are longer and more route choices, so ensuring reasonable fairness is much bigger task. Long/classic also has longer tradition. This is why I think long should be the one with qualification race if such decision of only one qualification race can not be avoided.

And if there is only one qualification race, I'd say it would be much better to use it for determining start slots and order for both long and middle. Just a bit differently like having 4 qualification heats for long and giving individual start slots for long. And giving max 3 start slots per nation for middle, but making them national slots so coaches could decide who will run for which start slot nation got, for example someone who did not even participate qualification race. Only 3 places for middle and 4 qualification heats means one unlucky incident like injury or disqualification would not necessarily mean less start places for middle for the nation. I'd see that much better and more fair for determining start slots and start order than any division point system and WR ranking ever would be. Places are earned by the very team same taking part with their current fitness and skills and not by some other athletes who represented the nation years ago.

But two qual races would be even fairer, of course.

In addition, let's put also those who does not qualify to the long to the end of the final results list. For example using time behind qual heat winner can be used for order. It looks and sound much better in news if we can tell our athletes were 87th and 127th at world champs than telling no one qualified this year either. As I can see thi approach does no harm to anyone.

I think most people want 2 qual races.

I see chances for two qual races. An ind. middle qual race, same lenght as final race and hopefully similar level of course challanges. It is no use to have trivial middle qual race and a lot easier course in qual as we have had at some WOCs in the past.

One solution if you can't avoid following is to have mass start long qualification race. Lets say 9-12 heat groups, different courses within the heat group, 5 min interval with 10 runners and X best from each course go in the final. Easier to organize and you could have different courses or forkings within one heat group, something like this year Relay. It would be much more interesting than a shorter, individual, easier long qual race.

I think most people want 2 qual races

Including the athletes? (whose opinions are probably most important here) The depleted fields for the long championship in 2013 suggest otherwise.

I don't pretend to know what they would think - and I suspect if you asked you would probably get every possible response, both between and within countries... but it strikes me that the best compromise between maximising involvement for all countries and maintaining a manageable program for those who don't wish to specialise, is to re-introduce qualification for the middle (to the pre 2014 model or similar) but retain a similar system to the current for the long (some modification probably needed as the pool of data used would change)

I'm not comfortable with the idea of one qualification race covering both long and middle - they are two different events, prioritising different skills and physical attributes, do you want each final to contain the same 45 (or 50 or 60 or...?) all round orienteers, or one to contain the fastest and best 'fine-detail' navigators, and the other the ones with the best endurance and route-choice capability? And I'm really not comfortable with the other idea floating around at the moment - some athletes prequalified, others run qualification races... everyone on the start-line should go through the same effort to get there.

the same 45 (or 50 or 60 or...?) all round orienteers ... Why would that happen? I think you may have misunderstood the concept. Middle start places would for nation, not personal. And qualification race would be shorter than full long, closer to the middle race duration. And fine navigation is still part of the long (classic) and route choices still part of the middle. Any top 10 middle candidate should be able to earn stat place for his/hers nation quite easily. And strong nations could simply count on long experts to do well enough to earn start places for the middle race (and if half of them fail, well, maybe that nation does not deserve to have three middle runners).

I think what we do right now is using all middle + long + relay skills combined to determine start places for both middle and long.

The proposal that got put forward a couple of years ago (now shelved) for a single qualification race for middle and long for JWOC involved, if I recall correctly, a conventional qualification race for the middle, then the long A final was the middle A finalists plus the best performers in the B final - but that wouldn't work for WOC because in JWOC everyone runs everything whereas in WOC middle and long aren't necessarily run by the same athletes.

Jagge that "And qualification race would be shorter than full long, closer to the middle race duration"

you call a WOC? Does basketball game has a shorter periods when play favourites against rookies? Qual races are not just to select best from the rest but they should be a real orientering motivational races for all nations which don't have a realistic chance to get in the final. If there would be a proposal for only one qual race like you described than IOF can probably expect strong oposition. No pre-qualified runners is also in same category.

Which means if you are serious about the long, you can't be serious about much else?

Long qualification race from WOC 2010:
http://ranking.orienteering.org/ResultsView?event=...

That's already closer middle than long final winning times. And I'd say "the only one qualification" could be even shorter. Having 90+ min winning time both in qual and final would be insane.

Appendix 6: Competition Formats
Men 90-100 minutes Women 70-80 minutes Qualification races are shorter

The word "shorter" is not a very good way to define the winning time of qualification race. In 2010 it was almost cut on half and you want it even shorter in a real "forest" WOC where one reason for it was access to the better terrains, more focus on the values of forest orienteering and tradition. It is probably time to define also a qualification winning time.

I spoke to quite a few athletes from multiple nations in Scotland. Whenever it came up, two qualie races was the (strongly) preferred option. Whereas opinion was much less clearcut on splitWOC etc.

There was no comparison between middle and long terrain in Scotland.

"bring back qualification" is stated quite clearly here too:
http://www.vjsport.fi/fi/never-surrender-the-hours...

Qualifiers were always shorter than the finals, both in long and middle.

@ndobbs "no comparison between middle and long terrain": heck, there was no comparison between middle and relay, and they were on the same area :) If we'd had qualis, well, the best sanddune area in Britain was only 5 miles away...

@Jagge Long has more issues with following than middle. Not this year, thanks to the 3min interval (and no thanks to the 90sec one).

It was disappointing (but understandable) to see Thierry skip the relay. Whatever they do, I hope it doesn't further dilute the quality in the finals.

@Actually, the system seems a bit unfair to newly promoted teams like Ukraine.

Well, on the other hand the current rules still protect the status very well. Div 2 teams have 4 individual races less than Div 1 teams to collect their points. It is almost impossible for teams from Div 2 to beat the 2nd lower team in Div 1.

This is even more unfair* as an old rule for newly promoted teams as they have had only 2 races less than other Div 1 teams.

*and nobody has protested against obvious unfairness yet

@kofols, I'm not sure there is actually an intent to have a "fair" fight between the 2nd lowest in Div 1 and the 2nd highest in Div 2. The norm is that there will be one swap between Div 1 and Div 2. Only in very exceptional circumstances (i.e., complete implosion of the 2nd lowest in Div 1 and exceptional performance by 2nd highest in Div 2) will we see more than one swap.

Whether or not this is the best approach can be debated. It's really a question of how quickly the system should adapt and whether some degree of "inertia" is desirable or not.

"I'm not sure there is actually an intent to have a "fair" fight"

I agree but the logic of how the system works (scenarios) and how the system should protect the fairness is part of the game and should be written somewhere before the system was adopted. It would be easier to see what was the initial interest. This is crucial, otherwise it looks very stupid that now IOF said "This change corrects an unfairness in the calculation system" and at the same time they are willing to preserve unfairness in the system for others. It can be read also in a way that the unfair rules can be changed only and only when the big federations don't like it anymore. Maybe, now with RUS in second division...

After today's middle distance the totals with regard to promotion and relegation for WOC 2017 in Estonia look like the following:

Men:

Div1:
Finland, GB & Ukraine set to battle it out with 2 staying up. Both the long & the relay to go, so who knows, but based on the middle GB have the most cause for concern, then Ukraine, whereas Finland look to have improved upon last year. Czechs also looking good enough today to stay up.

SUI 836
FRA 633
NOR 619
SWE 491
CZE 413
FIN 397
GBR 394
UKR 387

Div2:
At the top of division 2, Estonia and Austria look favourites for promotion. Though Latvia are still in there, and a big performance today in the middle from Russia means maybe they shouldn't be ruled out just yet, as they look the strongest.
In terms of relegation, all 4 teams, Spain, Belarus, Italy and Germany will be sweating it out over 2 relegation places. This really could go any way, but based on today Germany should probably be most fearful.

EST 253
AUT 233
LAT 216
RUS 200
BUL 194
LTU 189
DEN 184
HUN 152
POL 150
NZL 132
ESP 102
BLR 100
ITA 96
GER 95

Div3:
Belgium, Ireland, and Australia in a 3-way battle for promotion here. Slovakia could have an outside chance. Ireland & Australia though, both with Stockholm-based runners looked much better today than Belgium, and without Yannick, their chances are probably low.

IRL 85
BEL 81
AUS 78
SVK 60
POR 42
CRO 29
CAN 16
JPN 16
USA 14
ROM 6
ISR 1

Women:

Div1:
Russia put a big dent into some of the other teams today & have come from behind, but now look pretty good to hold on to 3 spots.
Czech Republic and GB are going to be battling it out to save their division 1 place, based on today, one would favour the Czechs, but there's a lot to go yet.

DEN 642
SWE 649
NOR 617
FIN 499
SUI 466
RUS 414
CZE 363
GBR 361

Div2:
Latvia, & France have put distance into the Ukraine today (who had a DQ), and it looks like it may well be a 2-way battle for one promotion spot now.
USA look destined for relegation, with 1 of Austria, Spain, Poland, or Germany likely to join them. Pretty open between them.

FRA 257
LAT 251
UKR 216
CAN 208
NZL 198
EST 188
LTU 186
AUS 184
HUN 179
GER 154
ESP 143
AUT 141
POL 136
USA 87

Div3:
A good performance by Italy's Carlotta Scalet puts Italy in a great position for promotion, and Ireland are looking pretty good for the 2nd spot as well. Bulgaria could mount a comeback, and there's a small chance Portugal could too. We'll see.

ITA 73
IRL 60
BUL 42
POR 40
SVK 24
SLO 21
CHN 17
JPN 16

Thanks Colm, this adds a great extra dimension to what we're seeing out there!

Any thoughts about the Quota system and its influence on the elite orienteering in developing countries?

Compare to the last WOC participation dropped from 364 to 327 athletes. Some countries which were present at the last few WOCs are missing SLO, ROM, Moldova and some countries with a very weak team CHN, SVK, JPN, KOR, RSA. Only Egypt comeback from the last year ...Greece, Nepal, Ecuador, Uganda, Cameroon are not present at WOC 2016.
It looks that Div 3 countries are weaker than before. Probably mostly because of the problem of generation change, finance,... but... It is evident that the weaker teams today compete with just 1 or 2 individuals and not even thinking about the relay. In women DIV3 only 3 teams have a relay team.

Thanks Colm. Excellent review. Will make those races within races so much more exciting for the fans - and hopefully motivate runners from all countries since their performances really could make a difference.

If only 3 teams in women's division 3 have a relay team, then that's somewhat short-sighted since the quickest way to get promoted from division 3 to division 2 is a decent relay result (even 20th will get you 44 points, which is significant in the context of the scores we're seeing).

The problem of teams with only 1 runner being reluctant to send relay teams was one which was foreseen, which was why a deliberate decision was taken to have a relatively small number of countries with 3 runners and a relatively large number with 2 (if you have a target size for the field, these two are tradeoffs against each other). Only so much you can do with a reasonably fixed field size though, short of qualifying races - which are coming back in 2019 for the middle, but not the long.

Colm - will cross-check your numbers against mine when I've done them (in the next few hours). Definitely handy to have two people doing them independently as insurance against error.

Maybe it was short sighted of the IOF to create a system that discourages teams outside the top teams from sending relay teams?

Teams & individuals probably dont have resourcers and motivation for such kind of a system. To be sucessful a team need a relay in 2 consecutive WOCs. In Div3 we are talking about amateur sport where many atlethes pay by themself part or most of the expenses to compete at WOC. This is one thing that IOF COULD ask teams at WOC. Who pay which costs. It also shows or can be a sign that weaker teams, at least those with forest at home prefer forest than urban orienteering.

Provisional points after the long:

Men

D1 relegation: UKR 471, GBR 495. If neither are in the top 5, UKR need to beat GBR by six places in the relay to stay up.

D2 promotion: EST 335, AUT 292, LAT 280, RUS 276. Looks like only a disaster can stop Estonia getting this spot. Russia are the highest scorers in this division in 2016 but a bad 2015 sees them struggling (would be a good chance for promotion next year, though).

D2 relegation: GER 110, BLR 134, ITA 137, ESP 145, HUN 159, NZL 162, POL 166. Germany look in deep trouble, but it's anyone's guess who joins them (six teams separated by 32 points, or eight relay places).

D3 promotion: IRL 117, AUS 104, BEL 92, SVK 79. To displace Ireland and Australia, Belgium would have to beat Australia by three places or Ireland by seven.

Women

D1 relegation: GBR 410, CZE 464. GBR look doomed unless one of the teams above them fails to finish or they win a medal themselves.

D2 promotion: FRA 337, CAN 290. As long as they finish France should go up. Canada are currently the highest scorers in this division in 2016.

D2 relegation: USA 112, POL 171, AUT 198, ESP 202, AUS 209. USA are virtually gone (even if Austria fail to score they'd need to come 9th in the relay), and Poland look likely to join them after Spain and Austria both had good days today.

D3 promotion: BLR 115, ITA 101, IRL 66, BUL 63. Looks pretty clear-cut. All Belarus's points have come from one person! Not sure who has relay teams here; even if the teams above them score no points, Ireland would need a 22nd to displace Italy, or 18th to displace Belarus.

Belarus are in div 2, bulgaria are the div 3 team. I think you have them mixed up?

Or maybe both are div 3 but you have left out bulgaria?
Colm didn't have Belarus in his post but did have bulgaria so I'm not sure what's happening.

"Canada are currently the highest scorers in this division in 2016"

Woot!

Now fixed (had BEL instead of BUL).

Sorry I had left out Belarus previously as they had 0pts.
Forgot to add them in yesterday when Denisova came 8th for 55pts.
And another stormer from her today has practically guaranteed her team promotion. Incredible.
A shame for us though.

This is really cool.

Thanks Blair, Colm.

And "Woot!" +1
Go Canada!!!!

Does this mean there's a good chance we'll get to send 4 women to compete in the middle and long next year?

Just send them anyway.

Would probably need a French mispunch, but it's at least a theoretical possibility.

Of course. For some reason I was thinking two teams got promoted but that's only the case for Div 3 to Div 2.

Isn't Canada a part of France?

No, that's New Caledonia.
(which is why they're not part of Oceania for orienteering purposes)

New Canadonia?

With regards to Estonia going up, they are on a winner no matter what happens, they'll get 3 spots anyway next year as the host nation.

When this quota system come to an end? Is it next year or in 2018.

Will this quota system still be used for the Long distance races when WOC splits?

@ dooby - could actually be in Estonia's interest to not be promoted this year, take the 3 automatic spots next year, and put themselves in a really good place to move up & stay up for WOC 2018

It will still be used for the long from 2019 onwards (at least under current plans).

FFS

What was the last good thing IOF did for international competition?

We are the IOF.

Mind blown.

So the amount of people allowed to run the long is dictated by the performance of a single athlete who competed 2 years ago.

WOC 2017 forest slots, women
+1 slot : FRA, ITA, BLR
-1 slot : CZE, POL, USA

— Simon Leroy (@sim5907) August 27, 2016

WOC 2017 forest slots, Men
+1 slot : EST, AUS, IRL
-1 slot : UKR, ITA, GER

— Simon Leroy (@sim5907) August 27, 2016

So CZE women relegated due to a DSQ in the relay, keeping GBR in Div 1

Can confirm all of those results.

A net increase of _1_ anglophone. The empire fights back.

2 anglophones?

+ AUS men
+ IRL men
- USA women

Is the final points list published somewhere?

Not yet - just have to enter the relay places into the spreadsheet (which I'll probably do on the next flight).

If Scotland becomes independent we'll have more anglophones AND more anglophobes :)

WOC results have also determined entries to the World Games in Poland next year - see IOF news item.

13 countries get 2 men and 2 women, plus Sweden (2) and Denmark, Norway and Switzerland one world champion each. IOF may allocate places for one man and one woman from each of the regions not already represented (ie all regions except Europe!). Looking at the scores (there is a link to them in the IOF page) it seems likely that Canada and NZ would get both places for North America and Oceania respectively, so USA and Australia will miss out.

Can't help thinking the WG is a stage-managed oddity. The top European nations for the "big names" and a sprinkling of B nations to give a slight nod to "world".

Well America would know all about who represents the world in its World Series baseball competition.

World Games: 'sports you've never heard of, in places of places you've never heard of'

I believe "The World" series was named after an early sponsor's publication.

from wikipedia Simon Winchester mentions in passing that the World Series was named for the New York World newspaper,[6] but this view is disputed.[7]

*citation needed

You may mock*, but nevertheless most of the top orienteers compete, gold winners include Khramov, Kyburz, Gueorgiou, Hubmann, Staff, Niggli, Kauppi, and Billstam. And Australia has been more successful than at WOC, with two golds and a silver, so it would be disappointing if we don't have a rep. in 2017.

Incidentally, the WG format is the forerunner of the urban WOC and precedes it by almost 20 years. It also helps to bring orienteering to new countries.

* I agree there are some weird/laughable/mockable sports at the WG, but there are lots of those at the Olympics as well. Orienteering, along with squash and lacrosse are WG sports that really should be in the Olympics in place of things like synchronised swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.