2009 Rules Update - Overall and non participation

[Jani Soderhall]

We need to clarify how non participation is counted in the overall. So that it's still better to participate than not.

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

10.4. OVERALL WINNER
An event with several races may give awards for the overall winner. The method of calculating the
overall winner shall be:
· Racers may enter as many events as desired.
· One event is declared the “tie breaker” before the competition begins.
· Racers receive points in each race according to the chart. (Below)
· Racers are sorted from highest to lowest sum of total points over all events.
· Ties are broken by comparing racer placing in the “tie breaking” event.

Participation is defined by 1st bullet (Racers may enter as many events as desired)
Non-participation is detrimental to the overall score in bullet #4 (Racers are sorted from highest to lowest sum of total points over all events)

Why is a change needed?

[Vincent Berruchon]

The problem is about overall ranking calculation, isn't it?

If an event has 3 disciplines, what about a that doesn't participate to a discipline compared to one that did a DQ?

[Jani Soderhall]

It appears to me that with the current points for overall it's sometimes better not to participate than actually riding. This is something that could happen only way down the list.

Once again, a poorly researched topic of mine: I haven't got all the details of it. I just posted topics that might need re-visiting.

The negative points used is also a poor method.

We'll let Corky intervene on this topic to get more facts.

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

It appears to me that with the current points for overall it's sometimes better not to participate than actually riding. This is something that could happen only way down the list.

Once again, a poorly researched topic of mine: I haven't got all the details of it. I just posted topics that might need re-visiting.

The negative points used is also a poor method.

/Jani

1st place = 100 7th place = 36 13th place = 20 19th place = 12 25th place = 6
2nd place = 80 8th place = 32 14th place = 18 20th place = 11 26th place = 5
3rd place = 60 9th place = 29 15th place = 16 21st place = 10 27th place = 4
4th place = 50 10th place = 26 16th place = 15 22nd place = 9 28th place = 3
5th place = 45 11th place = 24 17th place = 14 23rd place = 8 29th place = 2
6th place = 40 12th place = 22 18th place = 13 24th place = 7 30th place = 1
31st place =0; 32nd place = -1 ; 33rd place = -2 ; Points decrement by 1pt per place

History: The overall points table was copied from the FIS (skiiing). It only awarded points down to 30th place. At last year's rule voting, Corky made an argument that the points could not then fully sort the entire field of racers, so the negative points were added to the table.

In my opinion, the Overall points winner list is only really useful for the 1st 10 people. Beyond that, nobody really cares about the "overall" placing in the event.

I see three ways to address this:
A) Leave it alone and don't worry about the inconsistency at the lower end of the scale.
B) Remove all of the negative points and only have the table give points to people from 1st thru 30th (and let all of the lower placing people tie at 0 points)
C) Come up with a new table that increases the points overall to account for the maximum expected number of participants (say 250 people).

In order of preference I would choose: B then A then C

[Ramón Königshausen]

I created a point table for 100 participants. Any interest?

rmn