New 4-tier Event rules and guidlines

[greywolf]

Hmm, in Scotland there are 4 general levels of events.

A) JK's and BOCs when we have them, Scottish Champs, 6-days
B) SOLs
C) SoSOLs and equivilant, "colour codeds"
D) Training events, local night leagues etc.

I don't know how I'd put that into 3 types of events.

That's fine and probably how it should be: you just have to squeeze in urban races (B or C depending on size?) and a few random/unusual events...

Unfortunately that's not the way the 4-tier system is working, 6-Days are Level B, and Scottish Champs are Levels A B and C (Long / Relay / Sprint)

[graeme]

Everything is easy if you avoid the hard bits!
We have several National Champs, relay, sprint, interclub, score and night, CompassSportCup heats. Just looking at 2010 we had Edinburgh and St.Andrews city races, JOK Chasing Sprint, open races for WOC selections, PWT, PWT qualifiers and public races, JEC, JIRC.
That's more than the British Champs, JKs, 6-days, SOLS and SoSOLs put together! B or C?
More importantly, what possible benefit would there have been in agonising over it?

PS You might think it is "level A", but the six-day has always been level 3 or 4 in the old 5 level system. SOLs, as the name implies, are aimed at the Scottish competitors, while "level B" is all about attracting people from other regions. And so it goes.

[mharky]

Aye, this is more how I see things in my head than how people actually end up registering them. I guess we all know what we are going to get at the 6-days, and it being level B or whatever won't make a difference.

[awk]

I guess we all know what we are going to get at the 6-days, and it being level B or whatever won't make a difference.

Exactly - at least for those who know orienteering. Not such an issue either when a lower level event achieves something more. But it IS a problem the other way round, and a lot of Level Bs are looking very ordinary both in terms of quality and competition: exactly the situation we had with 'regional' and 'district' events. If Level B is to work in the way outlined in the original proposals, somebody somewhere is going to have to take the whole thing by the scruff of the neck, and be pretty blunt about some clubs' events.

[Red Adder]

Totally agree with awk about being blunt about certain events at level B- but with one proviso - it should be done before the event takes place. That way we don't have the event over-soldain the first place - and to me , more importantly - a team will still put in a lot of effort staging the event to then have it slagged off which is demoralising and only like to reduce the number of volunteers in future.

[SJC]

That way we don't have the event over-soldain the first place - and to me , more importantly - a team will still put in a lot of effort staging the event to then have it slagged off which is demoralising and only like to reduce the number of volunteers in future.

Unfortunately this may be the only way some clubs will learn.

[denzil53]

That way we don't have the event over-sold in the first place - and to me, more importantly - a team will still put in a lot of effort staging the event to then have it slagged off which is demoralising and only like to reduce the number of volunteers in future.

Unfortunately this may be the only way some clubs will learn.

Learn what?
In my view, clubs (and individuals) should never be slagged off publicly. Private constructive criticism may be more appropriate, surely?

[awk]

I totally agree with that proviso Red Adder - that's what I'm advocating: someone taking the system by the scruff of the neck and making sure that events will be significant races. I'm looking at the calendar now, and loads look anything but Level B-worthy.

[SJC]

I'm looking at the calendar now, and loads look anything but Level B-worthy.

The online fixture list returns 74 level B events for the rest of 2011. Of these it is hard to find 'loads' that look unworthy to be there. Perhaps a dozen at most, and these seem to be confined to just a few clubs/regions. These are the events that are going to be disappointing for the officials that put them on, but it is surely down to the clubs/regions to make the decision that they want them to be level B events and then live with the consequences.

[awk]

I'm looking at the calendar now, and loads look anything but Level B-worthy.

Perhaps a dozen at most, and these seem to be confined to just a few clubs/regions.

Even if we work on your figures, that still represents 1 in 6 events that shouldn't be at that level. That's loads in my book.

These are the events that are going to be disappointing for the officials that put them on, but it is surely down to the clubs/regions to make the decision that they want them to be level B events and then live with the consequences.

It's the competitors that live with the consequences, not the clubs organising.

I'm not saying these won't be good events - I'm just saying that this extra level was meant to be for the most important/best that weren't a 'national' event, and that's patently not the case in 1 in 6 (or more) of the cases.

[SJC]

Even if we work on your figures, that still represents 1 in 6 events that shouldn't be at that level. That's loads in my book.

That isn't what I said.
Of the 74 events listed, the majority are clearly level B events.
For the others there isn't enough information to know whether they should be level B or not and only the clubs/regions can know this. If they are good enough then they should stay there. If not then the club/region needs to think seriously about removing them from the list.