The debate about following
IdrettOpprettet av Jørn Sundby 29 mai, 2008 15:25:37World Of O has once again analyzed the race and looked for runners spending time together in the forest during EOC long distance.
I think the only thing that is 100% clear about "following" is that the longer and more technical the more runners will get together. Easy technical courses with long legs and routechioces at WOC 2006 and 2007 proved to very effective against runners grouping.
But do we really want "running courses"?
Personally I would rather see groups of runners than 90 % path and track running like in Ukraine long final. But most of all I would like to see technically demanding courses without the focus afterwards being on "who was following who".
There is much talk about course setting, but one thing is clear. If the terrain is detailed and technical, groups will be formed.
I think we have two choices:
1. Accept that running together is "a part of the game"
2. Come up with a new rule that forces runners to act individually. In cycling people who are caught must give a gap immediately. Runners who are caught must let the other one go, and if you punch within 10-15 seconds on a number of controls in succession- you should be disqualified. Or some kind of similar rule with the same effect.
Since this debate exploded after WOC in Japan there has been a lot of talk, but no real action, apart from using the butterflies which has no big effect other than destroying the courses and adding controls. Often they have the opposite effect, runners get together instead of being seperated.
If we really believe that following is a big problem on long distance races, then some real measures must be taken to stop it!
Opprettet av Holger 29 mai, 2008 21:47:02
If you start the butterfly at 50% of the course and the butterflies are fairly long (at least 2x15 or 3x10 minutes), I think they can work.
3 min start intervall would help too. How much less TV coverage would we have and how many spectators would have stayed home if we had 3 min start intervall?
Was WOC 2006 really that effective against grouping. Remember Lakanen and Gonon, Smola and Ott? The butterfly was too short.
Opprettet av Ivo 29 mai, 2008 20:56:46
I don't like the idea of giving a gap... Even if you get caught up with 2-3 minutes, you can still be in the fight for the medals, the podium, or maybe top-10 result (which, according to my observations, is possible the goal of more than 50% of the runners in a major championship). I guess forking is the best way to spread runners, but then the question about fairness comes along...
-i
Opprettet av Jørn S 29 mai, 2008 17:20:33
Yes, it is true that it doesn't have to be the butterflies' "fault" that the runners get together. And the minutes run also plays a part. But you can't really say that the butterflies had the desired effect yesterday. If the runners get together after 8-9kms butterflies or not- then why have the butterflies? And runners like Tsvetkov/Efimov won't be affected by butterflies (4 minutes between them). And 3 mins interval? It will of course help, but doesn't solve anything. The groups will be smaller yes, but there will still be groups.
Opprettet av jl 29 mai, 2008 16:59:11
The best thing, and the only thing to really work is to go back to 3 min starting interval.
Opprettet av -- 29 mai, 2008 16:15:25
Butterflies DO spread runners. Just because a pack is formed just after some butterly loops, it doesn't mean that it was the loops themselves that made the packs form!
It was rather the effect of having run for another 3-4 km that has made the pack form. If you had the same course but without the "split" of the butterfly, the people would still come together. That's because the faster/more stable runner has indeed had more time to catch up with the slower/less stable runner.