Discussion: Björn Kjellström Cup?

Where does one find the info and details for the scoring?
Go USA!!!

This was on the GHO web page from NAOC 2006. Maybe someone can confirm this is still the situation?
BJORN KJELLSTROM CUP

Given the new format (sprint, middle, long) of the North American Championships there will be new rules for 2006 for the Bjorn Kjellstrom Cup. The Cup will be awarded to the country with the highest point total after the sprint, middle and long distance races. Points are awarded to the top 15 finishers in each of M and F 20-34 according the following points system: 1st - 25, 2nd- 22, 3rd -19, 4th -16, 5th -13, 6th -10, 7th -9, 8th - 8, 9th - 7, 10th -6, 11th -5, 12th -4, 13th -3, 14th -2, and 15th -1.

The top 3 finishers for each country in M and F 20-34 in each of the three races is used to determine the overall points total.

Thanks! I couldn't find this anywhere. Wonder if these are still the rules...
Anyone see any sprint results?

Still the rules

So the BK Cup standings after the sprint (high score is better) --

Women: USA 54, Canada 51
Men: Canada 57, USA 48
Total: Canada 108, USA 102

Sprint results (total of 2 runs, men and women ran same courses):
Women --
Samantha Saeger 32:23
Emily Kemp 33:16
Katarina Smith 34:00
Hillary Saeger 34:25
(Lara Prince, NZ)
Corinne Porter 39:14
M-C Bruno 39:55

Men -- Erik Nystrom 28:33
Mike Smith 29:10
Brian May 29:28
(Matt Scott, NZ)
Jon Torrance 29:41
Leif Anderson 30:31
Eddie Bergeron 30:42

I'm sure the full results will be posted in a while by Valerie.

I've added the scoring system to the COF website

Does Erik count for the US?

A curious father wonder if this means that Erik won the sprint. I can't find any results.

Erik counts under the "Will Hawkins" rule. The results are on WinSplits.

Thanks. I'm still confused but on a higher level. Is race 2 the final, meaning Erik is number two. Or are the the two runs added?

Final results are based on the total time for the two runs. See the total times for the top few above.

Thanks. Then I'm not a curious father but a proud father.

Rightly so!

Thank you, PG. I'm convinced. Junior did two good races. I like to be updated even if I'm at quite a big distance.

Why doesn't Matt Scott count for the US?

Haha, a Swede and Australian living in the US count for the US; a Canadian living in the US counts for Canada; an American/Canadian living in Canada counts for Canada; and an American living in New Zealand doesn't count at all. Confusing!
Anyway, nice work Erik and go USA!

I think that Matt is not a member of USOF. Not 100% sure of that though.

Who decides who is counted and for what country?

Top 3 men for Middle Distance M-21 on Saturday:
1. Mike Smith
2. Brian May
3. Erik Nystrom

Results for day 2 --Middle:

Women: Canada 63, USA 42
Men: Canada 57, USA 48
Total: Canada 120, USA 90

2-day total: Canada 228, USA 192

I guess the results in this thread is because I'm curious. Thanks a lot and good luck on the long distance to all of you.

Saturday's Middle course results by Class and by Course are available on WinSplits:
http://www.obasen.nu/winsplits/online/en/default.a...

Do you need to be a member of USOF to win the North American Championship? Or to count for the Cup? I didn't know that was required.

You don't need to be a USOF member to win a North American Championship. Being a COF member works just fine... ;-)

Seriously, though - it seems very odd indeed that the COF and USOF have such different eligibility rules for the same championship. I am not entirely sure what the original spirit of the so-called "Will Hawkins" rule was, but I am guessing it was to open the championships up to someone who was intending on living in the USA for some years, and had already been here for at least a year, but for whatever reason was unable to get a Green Card. I am not certain that such a rule should necessarily exist (particularly considering when the rules in Canada are much more clear-cut and stringent), although in a case where someone was essentially living here permanently I could "sort of" see the arguments. But I'm having a harder time seeing the arguments for other situations.

After hearing similar sentiments from other runners today, from both Canadians and Americans alike, I wonder if this rule might need to be reconsidered.

I really don't care who you choose to deem eligible for the US Championships, but for the North American Championships, then I think both countries really need to be on the same page.

(And as an aside, wonky eligibility rulings south of the border or not, Canada really laid the boots to the USA again today, this time on the relative strength of the female contingent, plus another solid showing by the men... And if you calculate the scoring based on more stricter guidelines - yikes).

Looks to me like a certain young lady "laid the boots" to the whole field today. Nice job!

From the USOF rules marked as provisional January 1, 2008:
N.3 Eligibility

Competitions are open to everyone except as published by the host. To be eligible for championship competition, a competitor must be a member of an IOF federation in the North American region.

FYI: WinSplits for the Middle distance have been corrected for M-20, RedX to correctly reflect Eric Kemp as 1st place M-20, 1st place overall on Red X.

Results are not considered official until they are posted on the CNYO web page.

I object very strongly to the nomenclature of what people are in this thread calling the 'Will Hawkins' rule. While I did win one US classic champs officially because of it, the rule was not intended for my situation / me, but rather was, I believe, enacted to enable a student to compete officially in an interscholastic championships where several students are required to score points for a team. I was an unintended and somewhat surprised beneficiary. I think it is a stupid rule; to be honest I don't even think I should count in US championships as a green card holder.

Not that this is relevant to scoring this weekend much: Canadians dominated the long distance race again today, from my fragmentary understanding of the results before I had to leave early, so I'm pretty confident, without doing any calculations, that the usual result obtained again. (Although a certain NZ/US non-eligible runner won the men's race, I believe. (?))

Top three in the Long:

Women: Katarina Smith, Samantha Saeger, Emily Kemp
Men: Brian May, Jon Torrance, Mike Smith

BK Cup final standings:

Woman: Canada 166, USA 147
Men: Canada 180, USA 130

Total: Canada 346, USA 277

Matt Scott deserves mention here as he won the men's race convincingly. If not officially, he certainly can head home feeling like an unofficial North American Champ.

Here are the results for M21 and F21 for Sunday, also the 3 days together. Just those two classes. I assume full results will be up soon.

Sunday's Classic course results by Class and by Course are available on WinSplits:
http://www.obasen.nu/winsplits/online/en/default.a...

I hope I don't start a negative discussion, but I'm very curious: What happened with so many mispunches on the Men's Classic?

The results don't distinguish between mispunch and not finishing. I know Erik Nystrom didn't finish because of leg (calf) cramps. I suspect others may have also just not finished, as opposed to mispunching.

Yeah, Brendan twisted his ankle. :(

I object very strongly to the nomenclature of what people are in this thread calling the 'Will Hawkins' rule.

I certainly don't think the "student visa" rule was intended for you Will, but you were the first beneficiary. A mere 3 weeks after the rules were changed (by the USOF Board on April 12, 2003 as requested by the College Development Committee), you won the US Short Champs in Winona, NY!

Ps. I really don't know what the rationale was for adding the "student visa" category. I was, however, involved in discussions regarding dual citizens (back in 2000). When I moved to the US, there was a one-year waiting period during which I (a US citizen) was ineligible yet my wife (a green-card holder) was eligible! The waiting period is gone, but the rules are still more stringent for dual citizens than for US-only citizens.

This is off the main topic but I've seen mention in a couple of logs of misplaced controls on the blue courses: middle control 12 and long control 23. Can anyone clarify for me exactly where the bags were.

It also seems to me that a number of the sprint bags weren't dead in the center of the control circle. But that could be O2 induced confusion.

I will say that I enjoyed the weekend, terrain, map and courses quite a bit; even dead tired on Sunday I was having fun. But is just a little annoying to have these issues arise. That said, I recognize that the organizers were quite pressed in last minute course and venue modifications.

I see that not many splits have been posted yet from NAOC. Is it likely that someone will import the winsplits?

The misplaced control for the blue course in the middle distance was #12, as you say. It was located on the spur on the edge of the circle, in the direction back to #11. About 30m away from the proper spur. Since it was located in a spot that most runners would see it on their direct approach from #11 (unless they were off the line significantly), many people likely didn't even notice it was misplaced. A few people lost some time because they were expecting the control on the next spur and didn't register that the control was actually theirs. And a few people started off on #13 in a slightly confused state, as they didn't start from where they thought they started from. But overall, I'd estimate not a huge amount of significant time loss there my the vast majority of runners.

The misplaced control on the blue course for the long distance was more significant. It was #23, and the flag was actually located some distance beyond the correct hill - maybe about 50m. We didn't go back out there to measure exactly, but it was definitely beyond the correct hill - some felt it might have been on an unmapped feature, hard to say. For most people, there wasn't a huge amount of time lost on #23 itself, as all you did was see that it wasn't where you thought it would be and then continued to check further hills and found it by the next one. I did speak with one runner who did lose quite a bit of time on that one, though - looks like almost 4 minutes. Worse for me was the impact on finding #24. Since you were starting off from a point to the right of the line to #24, there were many runners who got into a parallel error and missed it to the right, instead finding another control behind a small hill (I think it was #219 if memory serves). From there, you either figured it out directly and lost less than a minute or so, or else you staggered on and missed a little bit more. I believe that at least 5 of the top 6 runners lost time there, with Brian May having lost the most. Luckily, he didn't miss the gold medal in the process. But it very nearly did cost him.

It's hard to know what to do after the fact in these situations. We all acknowledged amongst ourselves that there were mis-hung controls. But nobody wanted to be the party pooper and protest the courses, as the rules are quite clear; the course shall be voided if the controls were misplaced.

For the sprint, the controls were not always in the center of the circle. This is certainly unusual, though we were debating about whether or not it is actually against the rules, as long as the control is still somewhere within the circle. While it did cost some seconds here and there, probably the results were impacted more by having an unusually short start interval, which resulted in considerable pack formation. Unless the USOF has a different rule, I was under the impression that 1-minute start intervals for a championship event were more the norm.

In the end, it was still a fun weekend and the maps were some of the best I've been on in North America this year. The rain made it a bit tougher, particularly with a 2-year-old running around, but the CNYO had arranged child care which was MUCH appreciated.

Anyway, it was all very enjoyable, and I would certainly come back for more!

Tom. Middle 12 was on the spur on the SW edge of the circle - on the direction of approach for many people so they didn't notice until after, if at all. Will hit the right spur first then came back to the bag so he might know if it was visible from the mapped location, limiting the time loss? While that bag placement should have been better, it was apparently not worth protesting for anyone, which is fortunate, as it was generally a good course & map to run on despite the many difficulties faced by the organizers.

As for who was eligible for what country for the BK scoring, it may seem confusing, but I think that being eligible for your home country National championships was followed pretty well. In Brian May's (dual citizen) case, he's been representing his country of residence reasonably consistently over the past 2 decades, even s that's changed, so his choice of Canada for '08 is hard to argue with at this point.

In Matt Scott's case, he has been a member of the US Jr. Team, and Sr. Team on & off over the past 20 years, although only in one of the past several years was he a US Team member, while he's been living in New Zealand. I wasn't online this weekend, and it wasn't until Sunday morning that someone pointed out to me that Matt wasn't US/NA eligible, as he hadn't been paying his USOF membership dues while living in New Zealand.

While it's not a really big deal, it would have been nice if we could have simply signed him up for USOF at the event. If I'd realized this on Friday morning and tracked down a membership form and some USOF official to give the paperwork to, I think we could've more cleanly gotten him registered, but by the time I actually figured it out, and was looking to sign him up (Sunday after the finish...) it was arguably a little late. :(

And the moral is? Pay your USOF (or COF) dues regularly :)

One final note - I agree with Wil that the COF/USOF championship eligibility could be better aligned for a fairer BK comparison (although you beat us anyway...). Along those lines, what are the COF eligibility rules?

COF membership in good standing plus either Canadian citizenship or permanent resident status (i.e. landed immigrant). Period.

And that's what the USOF rule should be too. Simple. A US passport/birth certificate or a green card, and a current USOF membership.

I agree that #12 in the middle was on the earlier spur. On my way out I intended to run up the large ridge and pick up the paint blazes and run to the corner, but I ended up in a huge reentrant! Took a while to realize where I was and ran on to the veg boundary, eventually relocating on the sharp spur with the piece of trail south of 13. The veg boundary didn't seem all that distinct, but there was a change in tree type there.

For #23 in the long I'm not so sure it was mishung. I went just past the depression left of the line (halfway there) - had a control in it - then over the shoulder of that hill into a shallow reentrant where I stopped. Didn't see two hills there but the land was rising in front of me. Decided I needed to keep going, while keeping the marsh on my left. Eventually came over a rise and sharply down to the control. In retrospect the distance from where I stopped felt about right. Map shows a small depression symbol there. Circle on my map is centered just SW of that sm depression. So the features seem to add up correctly in my mind on the way in.

My plan on the way out was to bear right of the green hill and to look for the yellow dot in the marsh on my right. I ran directly into the yellow, then corrected my direction there, so had no problem hitting 24.

So did I hit the yellow spot directly because 23 was too far E, or did I aim slightly right to get around the green hill? Its hard to say. You'd have to walk out there and take a look to be sure. Given the large number of folks who ended up too far right it seems plausible. Maybe we all got pushed right because the terrain slopes that way away from some green. That whole area was pretty subtle. I spent some extra time in there looking for #4 when I missed my attackpoint but just kept going. Stupid.

Why do you need to be a member of USOF or COF to win the NorAms? Or the national championship? You don't need to be to win an A event.

(I know they are different. I know this may be a stupid question. Just curious...)

The situation Brian faced as a dual citizen when he moved from Canada to the US was pretty silly but I do, as one of the group who could switch between eligibility for US and another nation's championships merely by changing which federation I send a membership fee to each year, think it appropriate to have rules against simultaneous/same year eligibility for the championships of more than one nation in addition to the simple criteria Eddie mentions.

That's a reasonable question. To be on the US Team you have to be a USOF member. This may have something to do with representation and sponsorship (might even be an IOF rule), but for an A-meet or individual champs its not a requirement. Strange that it would be for the NA champs.

Yes, you'd have to pick a "citizenship." I think year-to-year is reasonable. Brian choses based on where he is living at the time. Jon choses to be Canadian no matter where he is. Nick is Romanian sometimes :) Was the only reason Matt Scott was ineligible his non-USOFness, or because of his extended NZ residency?

USOF membership does appear to be required for individual championships, unless I am reading the published rule incorrectly.

The title of U.S. Champion in any class as determined at an officially designated U.S. Championship Orienteering "A" meet shall be limited to those who are USOF members in good standing and meet one or more of the following criteria:

a) Meet one of the following citizenship requirements:

· Are U.S. citizens and citizens of no other country

· Are in a permanent residence status commonly referred to as "green card carriers".

· Hold dual (U.S.) citizenship and reside primarily in the United States.

· Hold dual (U.S.) citizenship, reside primarily outside the United States, and have not yet and agree not to compete for a championship title in another country during the current calendar year.

b) Are full-time students in the U.S. holding a current student visa.

Ah, so it is.

Was the only reason Matt Scott was ineligible his non-USOFness, or because of his extended NZ residency?

I understood that USOF membership was required and nothing to do with residency.

Worse for me was the impact on finding #24. Since you were starting off from a point to the left of the line to #24, there were many runners who got into a parallel error and missed it to the left, instead finding another control behind a small hill (I think it was #219 if memory serves).

I looked at the Winsplits and the effect of #24 on the results was pretty minimal, i.e., there were very few changes in position between control #23 and control #24. I was lucky that Jon T didn't get past me as I was searching around. He and Matt (running together) found it straight away. I did lose a position in the overall (total time) ranking, but that's unofficial anyway.

Does anyone remember the rationale presented to the Board April 12, 2003 by the College Development Committee for adding the RFKATWHR? Maybe its in the minutes from that board meeting.

Actually, Matt and I missed 24 slightly to the right and had to come back to it from the rockpile to the northeast. Not a big time loss but definitely not a spike.

The US eligibility rules are designed to limit (somewhat) the ability of people to run in multiple national championships. This is consistent in spirit with IOF's rule that an individual can only represent a single country in any given year.

* The rules prevent a number of dual citizens living outside the US (e.g., me, Pam James) from competing in Canadian and US Champs in the same year.

* However, the rules do not prevent those living in the US from competing in multiple championships (Jon T and Will Hawkins could chose to compete in US plus foreign national championships). Also, the rules do not prevent some non-residents from competing in multiple championships. My mother (a US citizen, Canadian permanent resident) is free to compete in both Canadian and US Champs.

In both Canada and US, membership in national federation (USOF/COF) is required. As far as I know, there's no limit on how many federations a person can join.

I think this line in the USOF rule above would not allow your mother to compete in the US champs in the same calendar year:

Hold dual (U.S.) citizenship, reside primarily outside the United States, and have not yet and agree not to compete for a championship title in another country during the current calendar year.

I guess you read "dual" citizenship as different from citizenship+permanent residency?

In the USOF rules, North American Championship eligibility is handled separately from US Champs eligibility. In section N (provisional as of Jan 1 2008, not in the table of contents as I presume this is draft form), the following appears:

Competitions are open to everyone except as published by the host. To be eligible for championship competition, a competitor must be a member of an IOF federation in the North American region.

This is a bit vague and seems to leave way too much discretion to the host. Note that CNYO basically wrote on their website to see USOF/COF rules, so there wasn't much guidance from the host.

I would suggest that now is a great time to nail down a common set of rules for NAOC eligibility that can be included in both the COF and USOF rules.

I would suggest the following:
Eligibility for North American Championship Awards is limited to competitors who:
1) a) Are members of COF, and
b) Are citizens or permanent residents (landed immigrants) of Canada.
OR:
2) a) Are members of USOF, and
b) Are citizens or permanent residents (green-card holder) of the United States.


Ps. It's important to note that this is not just a BK Cup issue - it also affects individual awards.

I guess you read "dual" citizenship as different from citizenship+permanent residency?

Yes. Citizenship and permanent residency are different things. A person who has only one citizenship cannot be a "dual" citizen, but certainly can be a "U.S. citizen and citizen of no other country".

I see. The whole dual-citizenship thing strikes me as odd. I can understand the (permanent) residency thing - like a type of long-term visa - but it really seems like any one person should be a citizen of one and only one country. You should have to pick at birth. Either the dirt under your feet, or the citizenship of one of your parents. You can change later if you want, but you can only be one thing at a time. Since we have no say over that we have to write our rules around it.

At the same time I think this student rule needs to be looked at. Now is a good time.

Again in the case of Dual Citizenship, using Pamela as an example, given your suggested rule she could compete in both the NA and European championships. Is that correct? That is, the simplified rule works fine for dual US-CAN citizens, but has no restrictions on duals with non-NA countries. Maybe thats ok. Do we care?

Well, the legal status of dual citizenship in the context of the USOF rules is kind of unclear since the US fundamentally doesn't recognize it, but many other countries do (and I think the set is gradually increasing over time). I know several more-than-dual citizens too. I personally have dual citizenship from two countries that mutually allow it as well as permanent residency in a third, but I do know of several people who hold three or more passports. (FWIW, I have no right to vote in any of these countries, my countries of citizenship because I don't live there, and my country of residency because I'm not a citizen.) It is one of these legal gray areas that have started to exist in an increasingly globalized world.

How precisely do you get a newborn to make an informed decision on this, Eddie?

A child chooses figuratively of course. Mom and dad get to choose until the age of consent, but they have to pick one and only one.

So the US doesn't recognize dual citizenships at all?

The United States position on Dual Citizenship is here.

An important point is "U.S. law does not mention dual nationality". Under US law, all US citizens are treated equally, regardless of whether they have foreign citizenship(s).

Ok, fair enough. So given your proposed rule for NAOC eligibility, having other passports doesn't matter at all, as long as you have one or the other US/CAN or have permanent residency status in US or CAN.

Now, what about the issue of which country you count for at NAOC - US or CAN - assuming you meet both 1) and 2) of your requirements? That is, which is your *primary* federation. Maybe you just declare it at registration. Maybe add a line to your proposed rule that says this. "If you meet both 1) and 2) you get to pick one or the other for any given calendar year."

And this gets back to the issue about National Champs events. In any given calendar year you can race as one or the other, US/CAN. So if you run NAOC for the US, you can't run the COCs as a CAN in the same year and vicey-versy. Just retain the existing "calendar year" provision.

Now, what about the issue of which country you count for at NAOC - US or CAN - assuming you meet both 1) and 2) of your requirements? ... Maybe you just declare it at registration.

Yes.

You should have to pick at birth. Either the dirt under your feet, or the citizenship of one of your parents.

Hmm, someday you'll want Max to run for the US, but the dirt under his feet at birth was Russia, so perhaps he'll have to run for the Russians. Of course, his birth certificate lists me & Nadim as his parents, so I guess he could go with our citizenship. :-)
Is this a statement against anyone ever being able to change their citizenship? Our o' team would be missing several key athletes in that case.

...
You should have to pick at birth. Either the dirt under your feet, or the citizenship of one of your parents. You can change later if you want, but you can only be one thing at a time....

I enjoyed the courses very much, despite getting a bit confused by the infamous control #23 on Sunday.

What are the chances that RouteGadget will become available?