Discussion: Proposed USOF Sprint Rules

Clare has created proposed sprint rules. They can be
seen here
Below is the message from Clare.

Attached is my proposal for Sprint Rules. I think most of this is pretty
straightforward. If it's not clear and you can think of a better way to
state things or have questions let me know. I'm open to suggestions.

The only controversial thing I expect is some discussion over the final
section where I required that the Championships offer at least three
separate courses (Red/Blue; Green/Brown/Orange; Yellow/White). I encourage
Board members to let people know about this proposal and get their opinions
on this prior to voting. Some people have expressed preference for a one
course fits all approach to sprints.

My personal opinion is that it is important that a Championship event
actually be the proper format. While it may be fun for a Brown or Orange
runner to see how they compared to the Blue elites, it isn't really a true
sprint course for these slower classes to have to pace themselves over a
Blue elite distance. I'm ok with this at smaller sanctioned events, but
don't think it's appropriate for something we label "Championship."

A one course fits all approach has a great participation advantage (comparing splits, etc.) but a big hosting disadvantage because of the time required for the start window. A sprint race with 150 people is a minimum of 2.5 hours to run the start for a race that is won in 15-20 minutes and has a max time (proposed above) of 1 hour.

Ideally you want to have the race start and finish all within 2 hours so the start period would be an hour max. A set of courses that have some common sections but different early sections of the course and different first controls would permit a bit of the split time comparison and significantly collapse the time that the start is operating. THe idea of having a red/blue, green/brown/orange, etc. mentioned above would also work.

I agree with Clare...long sprints aren't quite sprints. A 25 minute race just isn't the same pace. So, I prefer separate courses for Blue, Red, etc. (at least 3 different courses) rather than One Big Course...for a championship anyway.

I commented to Clare directly, but the only change of substance I see is to allow 30-second start intervals. They work fairly well in large open European events as long as you spread out the best.

Vlad,

Interesting that you say that. This was my only (very small) complaint about the Sprint Finals at Pawtuckaway. There seemed to be too many people with some real coagulation at controls and struggles to get to the punch.

Nice that we were able to get this year's Sprint Series in, with the points and the novel tournament-style final, before the sprint format gets all homogenized by the adoption of rules.

Pawtuckaway probably had a higher effective rate of starters than a 30-second interval would create, because people were starting in groups of up to seven. Not surprising that there were pileups, especially because the format intentionally grouped people of similar ability from the very beginning.

With 4 people per minute for much of the start list, that was more like a 15 second interval-equivalent.

I don't see why the SS finals should ever need to be a sanctioned event. (Plus, this year it was a CSU affair - we haven't put on a USOF sanctioned event since around 1985, and I don't see us doing it any time soon either...)

That is an interesting point. Would the Sprint Series and/or Finals be subject to these rules?

To JJ's point - the coagulation seemed most acute because of people of disparate abilities. I never felt any problems when I was just racing in my heat, but rather when we cam across trains that were moving more slowly.

Regarding the Sprint Series, just as a reminder, here were the rules for 2005. Obviously rule #6 was the most important... ;-)

1. All sprints from Jan. 1 to August 31, 2005 in North America count as qualifiers in the Sprint Series as long as they are announced in the Sprint Series schedule at least 20 days in advance.
2. Separate point lists for men and women. No separate age-group lists.
3. Results must be sent to the Commissioner (pg@crocker.com) electronically within 24 hours of the event.
4. If there are two or more sprints in one day, each counts as a separate event for earning points.
5. Pre-registration for the finals will be required a week or so in advance.
6. Rules may be added, changed, or deleted at any time by the Commissioner.

For 2006, the plan is to do this mostly the same. The qualifying period will be from January 1 to August 31. Right now Clem, Sandy, and Randy are interested in having DVOA host the Sprint Finals in mid-September. We'll know more on this in the next month.

The point system will be similar. I expect the best 8 sprints will count. The allocation of 40 and 50-pointers may be slightly different -- have to spend some time looking at the data for the 2005 series. Once again, there will be bonus points available for success in international sprints. And I hope to have some big checks again to pass out at the Finals.

For organizers, one change is that I may increase the deadline for getting sprints on the schedule from 20 days in advance to 30, as some were organized very much at the last minute. Or maybe I'll allow sprints to get on after the 30-day deadline, but the maximum points will go down (let me know about it 22 days in advance, and it becomes a 22-pointer). Still thinking about that one....

Now, how does this tie in with the proposed USOF sprint rules? First, they apply to sanctioned sprints only. I don't expect the Sprint Finals to be sanctioned. For sprints in the qualifying series that are sanctioned, and where there are 3 courses, then the Sprint Series scoring guru will just deal with it. One obvious way is to create a combined results list by kilometer time (as was done for the PNWOF sprints, where there were two courses). In any case, it won't be a problem.

One thing I would be interested in hearing is any ideas for getting more juniors running sprints. Should we have a separate scoring category for juniors? What else should we be doing? The nice part about not having too many rules for the Sprint Series is that it gives us the opportunity to try something new.

And with the start of the qualifying series just over two months away, it's time to start planning events. Will there be any sprints on Opening Day?

Current sprint schedule for 2006.

Would the Sprint Series and/or Finals be subject to these rules?

The push for Sprints did not come from USOF proper, so I don't see why it would be entitled to collecting sanctioning fees.

Clare wrote:
"...required that the Championships offer at least three separate courses (Red/ Blue; Green/ Brown/ Orange; Yellow/ White)."

First, I'm assuming these rules are for USOF events like the Flying Pig Sprint Championships (Demo event), not for the Sprint Series.

In any event, it's my understanding that big events like the WOC and World Cups use separate courses for M21 and F21 to achieve required winning times. If I'm wrong about that, say so. If it is correct, then you'd want separate courses for Blue and Red.

If you add too many courses, at some point it is reduced to absurdity. My vote would be for two courses (one being Yellow/White), up to some start window restriction, and then additional courses as necessary to achieve a viable start window. 30 second starts. If you have enough people for three courses, the courses should be Male, Female, and W/Y.

I guess my biggest objection is for a 12-15 minute winning time for older competitors. I haven't really heard anyone complain about having to run an M21 sprint. If there are complaints or objections, then I'd add as few additional courses as possible.

My 2 cents...

A seperate scoring category for Juniors would be huge. Now that you mention it Peter, I think that might be the best thing that you could do for the Juniors. I am planning to get behind the Sprint Series next year and really push it to the Juniors. I am still working on the best strategy for doing that, so if anybody has any suggestions, drop me a line.

I think that the Sprint Series could be one of the best ways to really build Junior interest in Orienteering, and help to raise the Junior retention rate (the rate of Juniors moving up to the Senior category for serious competition). While there might not be a huge level of participation right away, and you may feel skeptical about creating two new categories (M/F Juniors) if there might not be enough people to make it interesting, I think that it could be a fundamental step in promoting Junior interest in the Series. If it is at all possible Peter, definitely give this idea great consideration.

Will there be any sprints on Opening Day?

New moon on Dec 30th - how about a midnight sprint on Dec 31st? could be a blast with a little snow cover... brrrr....

Vlad wrote: The push for Sprints did not come from USOF proper, so I don't see why it would be entitled to collecting sanctioning fees.

This kind of rift with USOF is going to hurt us in the long run. We are USOF.

We are Penn State! (isn't that what they say?)

Couldn't resist...

We are Hugh? (And if you get that, you are officially a geek).

I think the main obstacle with Juniors and the sprint series is that the travel required to take it seriously is more than can be expected for any teenager not on the East Coast. Perhaps a junior category could have a lower cap on the number of events so that a junior hitting 3 or 4 sprints at A-meets would have a decent points total.

I agree that sprints are a good way to get juniors. The events can be spectator friendly, the navigation is a bit easier so they can better use their fitness, and the time is closer to what they are used to running in Cross Country meets.

I vehemently disagree - a more challenging entry requirement to geekdom should clearly be mandated in order to keep out the riff-raff.

The main obstacle I see is that sprints aren't being organized where many of the juniors are (northwest, south and southwest,...). Actually, they may be having sprint-type events, just not calling them sprints. So what's needed is more sprints spread around geographically. Maybe someone better connected to the junior heirarchy could help? And, yes, there are still openings for more Assistant Commissioners.

But good point about a lower number of events for juniors.

Note that thanks to Kris Harrison and Valerie Meyer, there will be a sprint at the Interscholastics in April.

Like what, John, refusal to bathe? Well, I'll have you know that I ran 2 hours in the woods at lunch today and then returned to work after merely toweling off in the Greensfelder restroom. Good thing my cube is rather isolated.

I hope we get a good number of Juniors at team trials. We usually get several busloads from Arkansas and Texas for our spring meet, but this is later in the year and the ROTC kids seem to have other stuff going after mid-April. We're also going to have a sprint or two as part of the Forest Park meet next summer and we'll try to make it enticing enough for some of those groups to attend.

That's a good way to get a quieter cube environment.

We'll have a club sprint series in Calgary, and maybe a western Canadian series (both as part of the North Am series of course), so our juniors should be able to get to some anyway. (A few tried the club sprint champs this year, and did well.) A good number of new juniors due to our junior program (weekly coaching, junior Grand Prix series).

No, I don't think refusing to bathe would help the sport's image (ignoring the question of how helpful vying to qualify as a geek might be) but if we're going to determine this with a single question it ought to be about something more obscure than a line from a show that was an enormous hit within the lifetime of all but a handful of AttackPoint users.

BTW, I'll second or third or whatever number it would be by now the idea of having a junior division to the sprint series.

OK - I'll bite and betray my lack of pop culture awareness. What is this reference?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say it has to do with a large black box in space and a frenchman in a pair of bicycle pants. But I don't know any better.

Oh, obviously.

John F writes: This kind of rift with USOF is going to hurt us in the long run. We are USOF.

I don't see a rift... goats aren't sanctioned events, they are not in USOF Rules, they are popular, they have been around for years, and this discrepancy seems not really as evidence of a rift or a strain, just of the existence of an alternate form of expression to the one officially codified. Accordingly, the former one is not taxed or inspected for compliance.

How would a W/Y sprint work? Would it be a white course with off-trail route choice options? Would yellow runners find such a course interesting enough? My initial impression was that a W/Y sprint course isn't needed, as the mandated lengths for classic W/Y are near sprint length anyway.

But the number of controls usually isn't.

USOF: USOF has not tried to define and sanction Goat or Score O' champs, but there is a major distinction with Sprint. Sprint IS part of international competition and hence would seem to deserve USOF attention. Would USOF and sprint commissioner(s) consider this approach by USOF: "Sprint is an important new O' discipline. PG et. al. have done such an excellent job of creating the discipline and championships in NA that USOF will formally ask 'Sprint' to continue their role with the request that they keep USOF 'in the loop'." I envision 'in the loop' as keeping USOF informed via reports/Board meetings/results; coordinating with USOF in terms of venues (which pretty much already happens via use of A-meets); but keeping the decision making within 'Sprint'. Would Sprint be willing to be under the USOF umbrella? Could USOF avoid the desire to dictate?

W/Y Sprint: Looking at most A-meet results, besides the dire numbers in W/Y it is also clear from the times that all but 1-3 W/Y are either walking the course carefully and/or making large errors. Hence, despite the short lengths, most A-meet W/Y orienteers are not coming in in Sprint times. To encourage running on a Sprint W/Y, Keep It Very Simple! Keep it White level - with fewer controls - on hand-rails (with only a couple controls requiring choice at a trail junction or route choice of trails). Also, with so few W/Y runners and a short course, time would allow perhaps an opportunity 1-hour later for an "I Challenge YOU!" do-over on same course - unofficial but gratifying and good training. ("This time we all know the course and I'd better really run!")

Thanks, Rick. That makes a lot of sense. Encourage the younger kids to run (which they probably love to do) without giving them much to think about.

I got to say it: Help, the bureaucrats take over. How nice were the days of freedom in the sprint world. A white sprint? I propose a lap on 400 meter track in a stadium. Estimated winning time including 10 controls between 45 seconds (flying punching) and 2 hours (family with dog, picnic session and twins).

The fun of the sprint is a) it is fun and fast (it is not thought for map hikers, sorry) and b) it is relatively easy for the organizer to set it and run the event. If different categories are needed, we can split the results, e.g. have juniors/elite and seniors separately listed, but still running the same course.

On a US sprint champ,there should be at least two rounds, a qualifier and a final on the same day. If the regular sprint is too long for the older seniors or the juniors, there could be a shortened version of the regular course.

I think someone already said it - but these rules are intended ONLY to apply to sanctioned Sprints. And there is nothing in them that requires any Sprint to be sanctioned unless it has the title "US Sprint Championships." There is no plan to foist a secret coup upon the Sprint series.

The reason we have developed the rules is because Clubs HAVE applied for sanctioning of some sprint races. In 2005, three sprints were sanctioned and in 2006, a club requested hosting a National Sprint Championships. It is USOF's job to supply standard rules and regulations for sanctioned races so that organizers and participants can have similar expectations. We're just doing our job in response to club sanctioning requests. I waited a year to do it in order to see what happened at the 2005 events so the rules I came up with would be reasonable.

If clubs started applying to sanction Goat races, then USOF would and should be obligated to establish rules for those. Until then - que sera sera.

And thanks for all of your feedback!

Clare

There's no White/Yellow Long-O, and by similar reasoning, perhaps there shouldn't be White/Yellow Sprint. At that level of expertise, I don't think there's a need for multiple formats. When there's a sanctioned Sprint, just have normal White and Yellow courses. (Although a Sprint course might make a pretty reasonable Yellow course.)

J-J's got a good point - sprints are about quick decision making, and folks at the white/yellow level of expertise are still learning how to make those navigational decisions. No need to push them to make them fast at that level of the sport.

My personal opinion is to have one course fits all rather than creating multiple courses for different age groups. Sure, the younger elite runners are going to win most of these races on speed, but I don't see the sprint distance as being too long for a reasonably fit orienteer of masters/veterans age and the sprints give us a venue to go head to head with the best.

PG,

Have you given thought to somehow tying the point value od a Sprint to the participation level?

Yes, but not sure how/if to do it. I don't want to tie points directly to participation -- if there are 10 people the winner gets 10, if there are 100 the winner gets 100. What I was thinking about was adding a little extra if participation was above some level. For example, a 30-point local event would become a 35-pointer if more than X people finished, where X might be 20 (or 30, or 50?). A 40-pointer becomes 45 if more than Y people finish, where Y might be 50 (or 100). A 50-pointer becomes 60 if more than Z people finish, where Z might be 100.

The reason not to do this is to keep things simple.

The reason to do it would be to add an incentive to get more people coming to a sprint.

One thing that is important to keep in mind is that I don't think a good reason to do it would be to get a more "accurate" scoring system for the Series (under the thinking that bigger fields means tougher compeition means more points should be awarded). I think the simple system now in place is accurate enough. But making changes that might/would increase participation would be a good reason.

On the separate issue of juniors, we'll add something to spice it up. Still mulling the possibilities....

I agree, a W/Y sprint is repetitive. I'm not sure what Jim Baker is suggesting as to the number of controls, but on most white courses, the real number of controls is constained by the number of trail intersections or simple linear features.
As for the juniors, I think the that in addition to the M/W catagory we had last year, a Junior M/W catagory could be added. Don't see why we need to reduce the number of qualifying races, I think attendance at the final is mainly limited by one's ability and desire to get there. Number of points only determines your start seed, not your ability to participate. At the finals there could be all juniors heats.
Considering my performance in the finals, I should try to avoid getting points next year to obtain a lower, and more realistic seed........
As to course length, it seems to me that many events last year were a bit long with regard to the 12-15 minute winning time.

As a coach of juniors this year, I think that sprints would be of a great benefit. The idea of budgeting your thinking time (which is how I think of it) is foreign to most people, and worth introducing early. Why create a habit of racing to a control and coming to a full stop, and then try to break that habit? In North America, newcomers tend to spend a few years learning to do ponderous O, trying to find controls that are barely at their ability of navigation, and then spend the next several years trying to learn rapid navigation. I think that sprints, middles and longs are a great way to break this up, and have people do orienteering where different factors are the limiting ones...quick thinking, quick running and efficiency for sprints, constant technical thinking for middles, route choice and variety of challenge for longs (classics). And I think it makes sense to develop rapid navigation in parallel with technical map reading and the other skills.

Sprints that I've been to tend to have more controls than the typical White/Yellow. The image in my mind is of our club Sprint champs in a downtown city park. I think I had more than 16 controls in 2.75 km, zig-zagging across the mown grass and tiny bits of forest. This creates a very different flow than the usual white course, with 8 controls on trail junctions. I think that a white sprint of 10 controls in 1 km in a city park, mostly just turning the right direction after each control to see the feature that the next control is on, could be a good thing. (In fact, we had a course 1 (Canadian for White) in our club Sprint champs.) No, it wouldn't be hard to find the controls (but is that usually the challenge of a sprint?). It'd be good practice for reading the map quickly, and probably a lot of fun for the juniors.

I guess it's not obvious to me that because clubs want to have sanctioned sprints, that this automatically means that there should be a national sprint championship under specified sanctioning criteria. Specifying criteria for a sprint to be sanctioned, and thus presumably rankable, is one matter. And maybe it is the right thing to have a national championship, or perhaps it's better to let things float for a while, with the "main" race being something more freeform, such as the finals this year. I guess I'm concerned that a national championship that follows a traditional, rigid format stands a chance of taking away some of the enthusiasm for the Sprint Series final. (Or alternatively, that the Sprint Series final will get the bulk of the attention, leaving the National Championship as a largely irrelevant event hardly deserving of the title.) Or maybe there is room for both, I don't know.

If the intent is to encourage sprint races, the series is probably far more effective. Just because there's a world championship doesn't mean that there has to be a national championship. A lot of races is better preparation for prospective Team members than one important championship race. And look what the situation is with other disciplines. How many high-profile night-O, long-O, or relay races are there in the US? Typically only a single night-O, maybe only two relays (the Champs and the Crystal), and no sanctioned Long-O other than the Champs (the remainder being unsanctioned Goat races).

Sprints really aren't yet a mature format worldwide, and that's also true here. More flexibility may lead to positive innovations. Remember the relay: by operating in a basically rules-free environment starting in 1991, it managed to develop into something that works much better for the US clientele than the old format did. The same may be true of sprints. Sure, provide enough structure to allow them to be sanctioned. But don't unduly restrict things. Seems to me that it might suffice to just add "sprint" as a type of race, specify a target winning time, and let meet directors work it out from there.

How is the PWT doing now that sprints are in WOC?

>OK - I'll bite and betray my lack of pop culture awareness. What is this reference?

FYI, it's from Star Trek: The Next Generation - the episode featuring the first attempt to introduce a Borg drone to the wonders of individuality.

At the finals there could be all juniors heats.

I think this is a fairly poor idea.

The US seems singular in a way it tries to isolate junior competition from "senior" competition. As recently as the late 1990s, it seemed to me that the best juniors were discouraged from competing against the rest, and encouraged to run their "proper-color" courses, one or two levels below Europe... to "protect" ? from ? I think the poor (no excuse from me) JWOC results those years at least partly stem from that philosophy. A 20-yr-old running Red? The lack of benefit seems to stem not just from the shorter course and a lesser physical challenge, but also from the lack of exposure to the "good" competition times from better-conditioned competitors.

Looking at this year's successful JWOC results, Leif and John F spent several years competing on Blue... Leif, almost exclusively. Same goes for Viktoria on Red.

I agree, the exposure to senior competition should be gradual... but, at Sprints including the Finals, we are looking at a 15-minute course. Well in range of expectations of even a high-school cross-country runner. I would support something like special Finals qualifying rules, e.g. at least 2 best juniors qualify for the A Heat in addition to 10 automatic top points getters and 4 wildcards. But not isolating junior competition from senior.