Discussion: JWOC live?

I can't see any information or links regarding live coverage of the 2019 JWOC races from Denmark. Will this be available this year?

Me neither. Waiting on "All You Need to Know" on WorldofO...

Bulletin 4 refers to all competitors carrying a GPS tracking unit, so I assume there's going to be something (whether it will be free or paid is a separate question).

Usually there would be a link on IOF's Live page. Is there a problem between IOF and Denmark JWOC team?

JWOC isn't usually on the main IOF platform if I recall correctly?

2018 was covered by liveorienteering.org, which I think was IOF Live, but they have since changed the IP to orienteering.sport/live.

https://liveresultat.orientering.se/ This is a link to live results.

Dunno but they might put gps here https://www.tulospalvelu.fi/gps/

JWOC Media Team have advised that they plan a video stream on Facebook.

There is now a Live link on the JWOC home page. Live stream will be available from 9.45am Central Europe Summer Time - that's 20 minutes from now.

Anyone got the live stream working?

No but live results have started...

I was just going to check the start draw and that's unavailable. Do you have any juniors, Australia?

Momentary glitch. Omigosh 17! Didin't know there were that many people in Oz. Oh I see that includes ppl with AUS in their name...

https://www.tulospalvelu.fi/gps/ go here for live gps

Australian starters (Denmark time, add 8 hours for eastern Australia): 10.14 Ali, 10.31 Angus, 11.25 Noah, 11.34 Dante, 11.58 Aston, 12.40 Duncan; 10.08 Ella, 10.31 Mikayla, 11.36 Caroline, 11.41 Caitlin, 12.01 Joanna, 12.26 Tara.

And our other Aussie junior: Emily Sorensen 11:52 (for Ireland)

And Western Nomad Andries Swart 10:41 for South Africa.

Video is up now, but it's not particularly well-coordinated.

Aston leading!

Good buffer of 14sec who else has yet to start? Fosser is not in the same race.

I think Aston is pretty well assured of a place at the very least. Duncan Currie is going well on the tracking.

Thought Fosser’s splits were implausible. Looking very promising.

The Finn Oksanen is probably the last one who can match Aston.

Great to see such a great result from Christian Michelsen who's currently sitting in 26th place. He's put a ton of work in over the last two years so it's great to see it paying off!

But he can't - Gold to Aston I reckon!

Congrats Australia! That's awesome.

Lets wait on the Latvian. Would have to be a superhuman last section.

Bronze medal to Grace Molloy, who was in Aus for several months last year.

Aston safe. The Latvian lost a minute. Well done Australia!

Yay for Aston! This day was always likely but maybe not anticipated quite so soon...
I had thought from Grace's recent results that she would be 3rd :)

Interesting video on the JWOC website - local resident pushing a wheelbarrow across a narrow pathway to a control while spectators are corralled behind a taped barrier. Timing only to the nearest second, but I reckon a collision with a wheelbarrow would cost you more than that.

Quite a "clean" map. Maybe its becos I could zoom, but I have the impression that there's a tendency to a lot of canopies and level differences in sprints. Didn't last year's JWOC have a complex of overs and unders that was quite difficult to "solve".

Just a tad surprised that WorldofO didn't tell us "all you need to know" about JWOC, and that it didn't figure in the upcoming events, or upcoming live tracking. But maybe Jan relies on organisers posting their events on his calendar; and he does have a review of the JWOC sprint.

And so, onto the Long. 6% climb in Denmark??? Maybe I got the decimal point in the wrong place.

If it's the area I think it is, that seems quite plausible - they may not be big climbs but there are lots of them.

Yes, hilly. There seems to be quite a few technical issues - with the tv, with the radio controls, and with people dropping in and out of tracking.

Did Aston miss part of the loop, looks like he went 8, 12, now 13... aha he was just keeping Ali company, now doing 9,10

Those will be phi-loops so half the field will do them in the opposite order to what's shown.

Some do the diamond first, then through the middle - the others go through the middle first, then the diamond. So everyone does the same legs, in the same direction … just not in the same order.

Another great run by Aston. Now the waiting...

A silver to go with the gold perhaps? Looks like Aston really nailed the last few controls. Some good runners still to come though!

Thanks, there's so much to learn on the interwebs.

Also another good run by Grace Molloy, currently 2nd.

Norwegian Fosser seems to be on course today tho Simmo. Edit: He's taken 3min off the best time.

Advice from crowd urgently sought. Veronika Kalinina's SIAC battery died after CP #8 snd so she had to punch the old way thereafter. She is currently out of gold by 0:01. Would a complaint or a protest be in order?

Certainly, the formal process is the best way to test the rules. Tell me, do competitors here provide their own (and hence may have some obligation to maintain them) or does the organiser provide?

If she was punching manually, how come her radio times have come through?

Organizer-provided SIAC. She was not punching manually but with dibbler into hole, as opposed to running through

When you realise that Aston started two hours ago...

(I am not at the JWOC but Veronika is my clubmate and her dad is relaying messages. Apparently the Russian officials did not want to act initially but as of a few minutes ago a complaint has been filed)

A protest would be in order, but what could the jury decide? How could they determine a time adjustment? Voiding would be disappointing for everyone. Against that, wouldn't each competitor be responsible for a battery check before the start, and how come this didn't highlight the low battery?

Grace definitely another bronze, and looks like Aston will get one too. The last Dane is running well, but it seems that a lot of runners fall away in the last part of the course.

I think Elias (FRA) and Bjoernsen (DEN) are the only remaining medal threats now.

I semi-recall another (bronze?) medal given in the 2000s on the ladies' side at the adult WOC because of the issue of the crowd counting down for the home-country runner. Which WOC was that?

1997 Norway. Not one of the high points of our sport's history.

Speaking of bronze medals, I think the rival candidates are now too far down to deprive Aston of his.

I think if I was provided with an SI stick by the organisers I would expect them to have done all necessary testing. I am sympathetic and wonder if a gesture such as awarding a double gold would be suitable.

As we know SI products can be faulty:-))

It seems that the concern I hear from the family/clubmates is how do we make sure this (and similar) doesn't keep happening on the highest level; less so about fairness in this particular case. So, it would be quite important to determine that (a) a hardware failure had indeed occurred, (b) that there were/were not mechanisms in place to prevent said failure, and (c) create recommendations for future organizers. (Veronika's dad is one of the 4000 Masters runners whose Final got voided yesterday, so the level of annoyance is at least mild.)

Gruver, with a SIAC there is a battery check as well as clear and check before the start.

There is no mention of a battery check as part of the start procedure - just a normal clear and check.

On the subject of that 1997 result adjustment - from the Irish Orienteer

Women
1 Lucie Bohm AUT 25.15
2 Hanne Sandstad NOR 25.29
3= Hanne Staff NOR 25.56
3= Marie-L Rornanens SUI 25.56

Marie-Luce Romanens moved into a tie for 3rd place after the jury changed her originally published time by one second following a Swiss protest.
The protest was apparently based on the announcer counting down the seconds for the incoming Norwegian runner (Staff) so she knew how hard she had to run to take Bronze. Both Marie-Luce And Hanne Staff received bronze medals.

(The jury decision: "The jury examined video evidence and the times of both competitors on the official clock and the back-up clock. The elapsed lime of the two competitiors differed by less than one quarter of a second. Under rule 26.7, "media representatives ... shall not by their presence or action influence the
result of the competition." The jury felt that the counting down of one of the competitors into the finish may have influenced the result in the light of the closeness of the times. The jury therefore agreed lhat Marie-Luce Romanens should be awarded equal third place with Hanne Staff with a running time of 25
minutes 56 seconds. - Edmond Szechenyi (Leader of the Jury) ")

I was there and I'm still not sure whether they did the right thing, but the precedent is there.

As someone who ran today, the first thing they do when we get to the start is check the battery of the SI, and then we have a clear and check before another SIAC test box, so it may not say anything in the online procedure but it is there.

Oleg (Veronika's dad and twice rogaining World Champion in Masters Men) is asking those in the know how SIAC battery check is implemented, on the technical level. Obviously the battery is inside the dibbler and isn't yanked out and put back in at the battery-check station. So, the microcontroller on the card must run some self-diagnostic when prompted to do so by the querying station, and transmit the results back to the station. Is this correct? The idea is that if a battery was "borderline OK" at some time, it may not be OK 40 minutes later after heavy transmit use.

Irish Champs one year, I had to wake up half the controls on a course. I was in third, one second off second, awarded joint second. It would be hard to say that the results indicate that Veronika was the worse orienteer. Double gold would seem fair.

Word from Veronika is the protest was upheld and a double gold was awarded. Stand by for official confirmation

Not an insider. Got curious and read this which sounds like simple yes/no on voltage, no indication of what the voltage for ok results in terms of duration/punch quantity etc. Can't be a fun number to pick, balancing between life and failure.

More: Complaint was denied, then protest was filed. An examination of Ida Haapala's SPORTident records (which? details to come) revealed that the time difference between the two runners was less than one second. Therefore a double gold was awarded by the jury. This is second-person hearsay, stand by, Mr. Allen is on it

Ugh. Battery state from voltage alone? a recipe for many more failures.

In the Mr Wonderful pdf link, it shows a battery test station with screen on top displaying "OK 307", which I'm presuming means 3.07 volts. If it's possible to get easy voltage readings, it might be worth checking before and after events, and maybe even writing those numbers down.

Is it possible to read the voltage at download and print it on the runner's splits sheet, perhaps with an * or other warning if it's low? (Presuming software updates to download software, of course.)

The more used up the lithum-ions are, the faster they drain from a set voltage at a set current, as knows anyone who used a smartphone. Voltage alone is not a sufficient indicator. Why the IOF would approve this use model escapes me. Hopefully there will be lessons learned

P.S. 3.07 V is very certainly not OK for an unadulterated output of a lithium chemistry. It's barely above death.

WOC used SIAC for the first time in 2015. SIAC expected battery life is 4 years. The failures are about to start flooding in :(

Complaint was denied, then protest was filed.
Which seems about right - the organiser shouldn't go unilaterally changing the results, and accepting the complaint denies other runners the chance to counterprotest.
Are they using the "less than one second" as a wriggle to award a double gold without addressing the SI issue? If the start clock was an appropriate little bit out the finish times could easily shifted into the same second and rounded to a tie (it only needs to be right to 0.5sec).

Graeme, I'd love to know the details, they are important. If there is learning to be had. But now, if I believe what Oleg is relaying, I should get a copy of Groundhog Day and watch it to put me out of misery, because guess what:

The announcer counted down seconds off Kalinina's time as Haapala was running in.

There's just so much to process over these last 2 days, I should go sleep.

Graeme's essentially right about the jury punting on the core SPORTident reliability issue. "The Jury decided that the organisers cannot prove that the time in the manual backup timing system is the same as that in the primary system." I took it to mean that Veronika had to punch the finish unit, and others didn't. If the units are synced to within one second of The True Master, and if the start beeper and the finish (direct SIAC read?) are both exactly synced with The True Master, this still leaves a possibility that the finish unit is up to 1 s off.

T/D, these aren't rechargeable Li-Ion or Li-Poly. These are probably similar to the batteries in SI-units, which are (I believe) Lithium-Thionyl chloride (Li-SOCl2) chemistry, or smaller versions of 2032-type coin cells, which are often Lithium Manganese Oxides of various chemistries. The first is nominally 3.6V, and the coin cells are nominally 3.0V and work down to 2.5V or so. See "Typical discharge profiles" on the SAFT datasheet. The problem (I think) I see most often is units that can handle a local event just fine, but fail under the much higher loads of a large event. I'd love to instrument a few units to see what happens to battery voltage at a big event.

Agree though that temperatures and current draw are very important and just reading voltage is a problem. I see lots of dormant SI-units that beep "low battery" upon waking but show 3.3 or 3.2V after an event.

I suspect a big event will need to have more stringent "battery test" issues, particularly if they're using the dibber transmit functions for tracking or other uses.

Datasheets:
SI unit battery type: SAFT 14500 datasheet

Panasonic 2032 coin cell datasheet

{edit: Does anyone know the details or chemistry of the SAIC dibber battery?}

Also, I'm mixing discussion of the SI-unit batteries and the SAIC dibber batteries, which was probably a bad idea.

Thanks for the correction, Matthew! it's still true that a lithium thionyl chloride would be near death at 3.07, but a lithium manganese oxide type would have ways to go.

Having speed read this thread, it seems like a reasonable judgment was rendered. It would be great if orienteering could at least get the non-core technical issues worked out. The endemic ones are for other conversations.

It does not need to be the battery that ran out, it is electronics so it could be anything from physical breakage, loose components inside that have shifted during a fall causing the battery to loose contact or short circuit. For SIAC, the dibber can also turn on/off the touch free function so it could be something triggering that it was turned off by software ..

There is a good reason why I’ve enforced two chips on athletes on WOCs and WCs I've been head of timing on (WOC 2016,WOC 2017, wc 2018 and soon WOC 2019)
Ive written it numerous times on forums and in communication with IOF. For high level events when using active cards, the athlete should always carry two for redundany in case of mechanical failure... Hopefully this incident can be used to educate IOF, SEAs and organizers about this...

This is why there should be no feedback signals at all. Athlete would not know system is not working and performance would not be affected by hardware/software failures. Carrying several sticks will be just a partial fix, one of them would still be the main one, the closest one athlete tries to punch with and check feedback from.

Perhaps if the organisers don't give out two sticks (or even if they do) smart athletes might start carrying their own stick as a further back up. If I was a coach that is what I would be telling my athletes to do.

It remains to be seen if the organisers or a jury would accept the punches on a personal stick as proof of punching.

Having multiple sticks as back up is all very well, but the Jury actually said...

"The Jury decided that the organisers cannot prove that the time in the manual backup timing system is the same as that in the primary system."

which has nothing to do with failing sticks or punching speeds. Essentially, the Jury has said that you can't use regular SI-punching as a backup for SIAC. Its a crafty bit of loopholery to get to a popular decision, and I suspect future SEAs and organisers will choose to ignore it.

If they had had two chips they would have had a time from the finish in the second one not having to look at the backup system... Redundancy...

It seems that the concern I hear from the family/clubmates is how do we make sure this (and similar) doesn't keep happening on the highest level

Stop using SIAC.

Graeme - my suggestion wasn't really related to the jury decision - more to your observation that we are about due for a lot of SIAC battery failures. If I was coaching a team with medal ambitions I would ensure everyone carries a new stick

In a way the jury was 'lucky' the difference was only 1 sec so they could make a decision based on the possibility that the main and backup systems were not perfectly synchronized. But what if Kalinina had been 10 sec behind? Enough so that the synchronization could not be an issue. You could still argue she was disadvantaged more that 10 sec from having to manually punch and that that was due to factors beyond her control (the organisers supplied a faulty stick). I wonder what a jury would have done in that case?

tunapeter - how does it work when you give a runner two sticks? Do they keep both on their hand and check the feedback from both, or is the second (reserve) stick kept in a pocket,or something, out of sight?

Jagge is right in theory about the feedback. The basic problem with SI has always been that a failure of the punching system (either a unit or now the SIAC stick) means the runner is responsible for noticing the failure and then for taking action to remedy the failure - eg punching pin punch on the map or in this case dibbing in the unit instead of just running past. Whatever the case the runner is disadvantaged - ie loses time. This is fundamentally unfair.

A failure of the punching system is not something the runner has any control over so should not affect their time.

Robplow, they should be carried on the same hand / wrist so you can't cheat by reaching with left / right arm depending on what's closest. My opinion is that both should give feedback so runner still get feedback in case one dies.

The new rules also state that in case of two chips punches should be merged automatically at readout between the two, I.e in case a punch only exist in one of them runner should be OK already at readout.

Carrying several sticks will not help when control station dies. But I guess SI stations indestructible and software is perfect and bug free.

I can't recall exactly how we do it, but when doing downhill MTB, we provide 2 SIAC's, both on the bike. 1 is the primary, the 2nd is there if we don't get a read on the primary

Jagge, on high level events there is already a requirement of two punching stations at each control, independent of system used...

And if one fails you need to try the other one and time is affected. Without feedback that woukd not happen.

Without feedback (or without lack of feedback) Kalinina would have been DSQ ?

Organizers' decision seem to be based on "same time on back-up timekeeping" and not at all on "Kalinina losing time on non-touch-free punches".

Now main timing method gave Haapala 1 sec better time than Kalinina's back-up timing, and Haapala's back-up timing was equal to Kalinina's back-up timing.

I wonder if it had been same result otherwise:
- Kalinina would have wone win 1 sec, but back-up timing for Haapala would have shown same time -> shared gold?
- or Kalinina's back-up timing would have been same as Haapala's main timing but Haapala's back-up timing would have been 1 sec better?

Well, in such case there probably would have been no protests and Haapala's back-up timing time wouldn't have been examined?

they should be carried on the same hand / wrist so you can't cheat by reaching with left / right arm depending on what's closest. My opinion is that both should give feedback so runner still get feedback in case one dies.

The new rules also state that in case of two chips punches should be merged automatically at readout between the two, I.e in case a punch only exist in one of them runner should be OK already at readout.

What if someone switches one stick to the other hand during the race - then the data from both are automatically merged at the finish so the trick is not detected. ;)

Robplow, if you want to cheat, there are ways that give better results than that... But yes, if someone want to do it that way it will be unnoticed unless an organizer spots you on the course wearing them that way... I feel that that is a rather small issue anyway..

Now main timing method gave Haapala 1 sec better time than Kalinina's back-up timing, and Haapala's back-up timing was equal to Kalinina's back-up timing.
AFAIK. the SI system gives times to 0.1 sec precision. According to the IOF rules, all times are then rounded down to the next whole second.
So if the recorded times are

53:46.0 vs 53:46.9 it's a tie, but if they're
53:45.9 vs 53:46.0 the faster time wins.

Without feedback (or without lack of feedback) Kalinina would have been DSQ ?

Of course not, why would you want to disqualify her? Most likely she would have won alone, Haapale being second, assuming she must lost here now more than one second.

We were given a backup SIAC at least year's WMTBOC. The second one did not provide feedback and was only used in case the first failed. Carrying on the same hand should theoretically ensure that both detect the unit at the same time.

Of course not, why would you want to disqualify her?

I think the assumption is that the SIAC stick was not registering, and she would have arrived at the finish with a lot of missing punches.

I guess Jagge's point is that she wouldn't have known, so she would have had no reason not to go to all the controls and punch correctly...

How many go to a-finals in middle q? Almost every year the same problem, you have to dig that information from somewhere deep in the bulletins.... It is the only thing that matters in qualification and should be the first thing you see on the live page.

I assume it's top 20 in each heat. That's what it's been for every year as long as I can remember

20 to A-finals
20 next to B-finals
rest to C-finals
DSQ/DNF today can start in C-finals but won't be placed
DNS today can't start tomorrow

Great run by Julia in the quali! Rachel and Bridget good runs, too, in the same heat.

Middle Qual is almost like a THOMASS event with those controls inside the fence. Anyone know the reason for the fence - I don't think there are reindeer in Denmark!

Aston seems to be going really well, but there's no radio time up for him yet.

Aha, he's in the lead - and a good route choice 11-12.

Looks good for Thomas Laraia too, and Adrian off to a good start!

AUS: Key, Melhuish
CAN: Svoboda, Michelsen
NZL: Tidswell, Lynch, KCW
USA: Laraia, Doubson

Is this the most ever non-European runners to make the JWOC A-final?

10 in 2007 (5 Australians, 4 New Zealanders and 1 USA) was one I found. Bit of an unlucky day for Australia with four missing by less than a minute.

I was so hopeful for Dante. The B final's going to be competitive between him & Angus & Alistair!

Also, Simmo, I believe the fenced area to contain sheep. As per the team officials' meeting notes:
● After the publication of Bulletin 4, a flock of 40 sheep was released in a fenced area.
● The sheep remain in the fenced area during the competitions.
● Please show consideration for the animals.
● They normally remain calm and stay together as a flock.

Uhhh is Ella ok?? She stopped for a long time and then kept going?

Tash said she was looking for her SI

They normally remain calm and stay together as a flock

Weird sheep they have over there.

That sucks about Ella. We thought she knocked herself out!

So did the farmer unlock the gates for the race?

Self-closing gates, which sheep can't open :)

It's well known that Europeans can't cope with sheep on the course.

Reminds me of the story of an Australian orienteer who dnf'ed a world cup race in Switzerland after being too scared to punch a control because
it was surrounded by cows. You know those scary Swiss cows with their scary bells.

Unless I'm mistaken, 2/3 of USA juniors made the A or B Middle final. That sounds like a high-water mark...

(I remember when only 1 or 2 made the B final)

EDIT: I have JWOC stats going back to 2009, and will check this out...

Looks like AUS did the same (unfortunately two of our junior women seem to have mispunched, the other four are in A or B - 2/3 of men are also in A or B).

For the older generation, from which branch of the Key tree is Aston?

Natasha & Warren, the Champion tree (Natasha still runs for Aus at WOC).

Thanks, and congrats to them!

I was going to ask the same thing about Master Key. What a family dynasty!

I have JWOC stats going back to 2009, and will check this out...

This year, 2/3 of the USA juniors qualified for the A or B finals (2A, 6B, 4C)

In 2016, 3/4 qualified for the A or B finals (3A, 6B, 3C)

In 2014, 2/3 qualified for the A or B finals (1A, 7B, 4C)

Ow

All six French men in the top 24 including silver for Elias. Speaking of France. I think control #6 on the men's A final course is the same spot where Gueorgiou made his error in WOC 2006 middle breaking what could have been 7 WOC middle golds in a row. The French juniors got their revenge for their hero today!

Watching this with a 2 minute tail is quite nice for spotting good v bad routes

Aston on the podium again in 5th. I think he lost the possibility of 2nd or 3rd by not running across the paddock into the 12th control.

I've only been watching a little, but I didn't see any of the men do it, just saw Fiona Bunn do it.

Interesting both races with 1 outstanding performance then a close battle for the rest of the podium...

Hard to see Norway get beaten in the M relay based on the middle and long results but the Swiss and French will give it a go. The W seem much more open though - I guess Sweden or maybe Russia start as favourites, but NOR, SUI, DEN could also be in the mix, maybe even GBR if whoever joins Bunn & Molloy fires on the day? Any other theories?

Who will win the commonwealth cup? (Brexit stands for leaving the commonwealth, right?)

@gruver Scotland has the most medals so far.

Only the relay counts (says the guy who'll be adding up the points for the non-Euro Cup for MTBO and will count all the events).

Everyone knows that it's the Long Distance that separates infants from boys from fully developed men to champions.

Yet the world masters series in MTBO predominately uses sprint and middle distance events for point calculations!

About the Key Dynasty: For those of us from away it would be interesting to see the Key family Tree.
I remember seeing Steve, Sue and Warren at WOC '78 in Norway. At the competitors' information meeting and Start Draw the MC gave Sue a special prize on behalf of the scoreboard sign makers because with only six letters her hand made sign was the easiest to do, far easier than some of the Finnish and Bulgarian names, for example.

I think one of the commentators might explode. Have they been this excited for all legs of both relays?

Wish I could hear the British team/fans screaming right now!

undy - I think he's been that excited all week (and he appears to pronounce "go" with a similar number of o's to that used in the word "gol" in Latin American Spanish).

A superb run by Grace, that's for sure! And Veronika too especially since she missed out on the pay-waving practice that everyone else got the other day

Great run by the current West Australian Champion (in both middle and long) to anchor the British team to the relay win.

That's interesting, I don't recall WA giving her the trophy.

Why are there so many DSQs in the men's race unofficial results?

In Europe a MP is also a DSQ.

I don't know if that's the case here, since for the men the times are shown and the result is DISQ (and only for the last leg runners) but several women who mispunched have MP as the result with no time shown? https://www.jwoc2019.dk/sites/default/files/2019-0...

blair - previously I've been watching one or more of the cameras and not watching the commentary so much. That way you get to hear the Strayans swearing when they find a control.

I was wondering the same thing as emma...

you get to hear the Strayans swearing when they find a control

If that's the case, what kind of language do they use when they're not finding a control?

Maybe they are DISQ for following.

Seems weird, no male teams MP and no female teams DISQ. I know sometimes the result software automatically allocates the applicable code based on what it thinks the competitor should have (we frequently have MP at our local event when in fact it should be DNF) and maybe the organisers didn't bother to change it. However the live results don't show anything for the male teams so possibly a manual override of results after the fact.

It would be a massive precedent to DSQ for following in a relay! More likely that they didn't follow a marked route during the spectator run-through or the changeover, or maybe took the wrong map.

I think that counts as a catch, tRicky!

The DSQs in the unofficial results are gone (as of yesterday). I guess some sort of timing issue. Impressive that none of the men's relay teams mispunched!