Which events should be ranking events?

[Red Adder]

Here we go round the mulberry bush - AGAIN.

The L4 gang did a great disservice to the sport in opening up this can of worms rather than helping put pressure on BOF to implement the original L3 proposals effectively and in line with the actual recommendations of its proposers.

[ifor]

The new ranking list has made me go to at least 2 more event than I would of previously this year. Trying to get up to 6 events is the motivation so I at least get on the first page for the Bok list. I am still one event short though.... I just wish the night champs where included but the 10 person rule would course trouble anyway...

[DJM]

If you look at the 4 tier event structure summary table (Feb Compasssport page 10 or was on BOF web site). Level 3 events were indicated as ranking events. As this formed part of the proposal - albeit as an appendix- . I'd have to assume that the vote at the AGM was for new level 1,2 and 3 to be ranking events.

The appendix clearly did not form a part of the proposals which were voted on, else it would have been included within the proposals, or referenced by them. Thus issues such as which levels should be ranked can be debated from scratch.

And then this year (as Marco Polo notes) the 4-tier system was sold to members with the top 3 levels contributing to rankings....

...so on what grounds exactly are Rules Group even suggesting revising this?...

As above, we cannot claim that the AGM voted for the top three levels contributing to the rankings.

With regard to "grounds", all of the BOF committees and groups have been asked to contribute their views on the restructuring to 4 levels. Rules Group, at their recent meeting, (quite properly) did just this. Its view about rankings is just one view of many (and not just about rankings either) which will be considered by Events Committee at its meeting tomorrow. EC will then make recommendations and options to the July Board meeting.

[graeme]

The appendix clearly did not form a part of the proposals which were voted on, else it would have been included within the proposals, or referenced by them.

The document...
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... ucture.pdf
with the table as written by the proposers, and referred to by them during the meeting, begins with the words ...
Due to space restriction with the AGM Booklet it was decided not to include the table that was referred to in the 4 tier proposal as submitted and to publish this on the British Orienteering website.
So how does that make it "clearly not part of the proposal"?

[Clive Coles]

When we introduced the 3 tier structure BOF tried to encouraged us to upgrade our old colour coded events (C4's) to level 2. Some clubs did ~ many did not.

The new ranking system was launched ( and sold to us) as being more inclusive than the old ranking system ~ To achieve this BOF decided to extend the number of qualifying events to include all L2 events.

I suspect many of the regular colour coded fixtures are likely to be switched back into new level 3. Level 2 events will revert to containing just a restricted number of "special/ attractive/ branded " regional events. That's surely the prime challenge for the rules group ~ to sort out a set of rules for determining what criteria define a new L2 event.

The logic would, in my view suggest, that the new level 3 events should continue to be ranked. It would be a backward step to exclude regular colour coded events from the ranking system.

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

I have been heartened by the support for the idea that the single ranking list scheme should be based on as wide a range of events as possible - so as to include, for example, what were formerly the 'basic' colour coded events. In response to Clive, I am afraid that certain restrictions on controllers and perhaps also the idea (myth?) that the FC might change higher access fees for L2 events has meant that many colour coded events in my part of the world have stayed at L3 this year and therefore denied many local orienteers the chance to obtain ranking points.

I understand from my partner 'outlaw' that an item on tomorrow's Events Committee agenda is about the ranking scheme and which events should be included (L1 and 2 are suggested, allegedly) but whether this is for 2010 with 3 levels or 2011 with 4 levels of event was not clear (to me) which was why I started this thread and when he comes back from his golf day out I will draw his attention to people's views.

[DJM]

graeme wrote:
Due to space restriction with the AGM Booklet it was decided not to include the table that was referred to in the 4 tier proposal as submitted and to publish this on the British Orienteering website.
So how does that make it "clearly not part of the proposal"?

Precisely because it didn't appear in the AGM booklet! The membership were invited to vote for or against Proposal 10 "that the current BOF Event Structure be amended, with effect from 1st January 2011, from a 3 tier structure to a 4 tier structure, the Levels to become ...". Brief descriptions of the 4 levels were then given and these were followed by the names of the proposer and seconder ... end of proposal.

This is the proposal which was passed - period! And both proposer and seconder agree this to be the case and that the table cannot be regarded as having been voted in as well.

[PKJ]

The appendix clearly did not form a part of the proposals which were voted on, else it would have been included within the proposals, or referenced by them. Thus issues such as which levels should be ranked can be debated from scratch.

So, let me get this straight. You include some details when you submit an AGM proposal, then leave them out of the actual proposal 'due to space restrictions'. You also refer to these details at the AGM, and in various communications with the membership. But, because they weren't in the shortened proposal as voted on, the extra details might as well not have existed.
Hmmm... couldn't possibly comment...

For me, having an inclusive, single ranking list based on a large number of events of different type is the only unequivocally good change to come from all of this structure review stuff.

[graeme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXl-UiI ... re=related

[DJM]

PKJ wrote
So, let me get this straight. You include some details when you submit an AGM proposal, then leave them out of the actual proposal 'due to space restrictions'.

The actual final proposal from the two proposers did not include the table, i.e. the "details" referred to above.

In other words, the proposers did not themselves consider the table to be a part of the proposal.

And, yes, it really was because of space restrictions that the table was not included in the AGM booklet. And neither was the 3 tier table, previously published by BOF, for exactly the same reasons. Proposal 10 took up 1.5 pages of the booklet as it was; to have included the 3 and 4 tier tables also would have swelled this to 3 or 4 pages ...

However, whether or not the table(s) was/were published in the AGM booklet is irrelevant. The 4 tier table was never a part of the proposal!!

[SJC]

And, yes, it really was because of space restrictions that the table was not included in the AGM booklet. And neither was the 3 tier table,

Although there was apparently no lack of space for BOF to publish the 3 tier table in the edition of Focus that came with the AGM booklet.

[NeilC]

David, whether it officially was or it wasn't the membership quite reasonably believed that these additional details formed part of the proposal and voted for the entire package. I really don't think it would be healthy for the board to ignore this.

[Gross]

the membership quite reasonably believed that these additional details formed part of the proposal and voted for the entire package

Actually they didn't... it was the AGM that voted for this.... consisting of the small part of the membership that are bothered enough about such things to turn up.....

[Marco Polo]

A fair point that less than a thousand voted, (though not all of those 'bothered to turn up', there were postal votes. )

In the end though it would be best to go with what the majority of those who could be bothered to vote decided on.

Given that, the wording in the document Graeme linked to is at best misleading. The document is titled "Proposal 10 at AGM 2010" and the first line implies that the table is omitted from the booklet NOT the proposal.

I'm happy to accept that some parts of the proposal wording might be vague and when the detail of the implementation was worked out it might not be quite what everyone expected; but this was a very clear and defined statement.

This part of the discussion could be considered simply playing with words or procedural detail, but it's clear from the even smaller sample that posted here that there a wish to have level 3 events classified as ranking.

Personally I think that extending ranking to the current level 2 is about right, but restricting it to the new proposed level 2 would give too few ranking events.

For me and I'd hope many orienteers, the benefit of the ranking list is a measure of performance. In a sport where a large number of factors affect performance from week to week, comparing your performance against other competitors nationally gives a useful way of monitoring improvement and setting targets (in a relatively quantitative manner). It isn't perfect but the alternatives (e.g min/k, position all have their drawbacks as well).

[pete.owens]

The membership were invited to vote for or against Proposal 10 "that the current BOF Event Structure be amended, with effect from 1st January 2011, ...

The date is problematical.

Any event in the first half of next year, which would come under any likely proposal for the new second tier will already be well underway in the planning and organisation process. It will already by registered in the current event structure. Those organising such high profile events really need to know what standards they are working to from the start.

Part of the reason for the misunderstandings of the existing structure was the rushed implementation and botched transitional arrangements which resulted in most C4 events being placed in the wrong level.