Peter Palmer Relays 2013

[LostAgain]

It might be a great competition for a large minority, but as a national competition, it isn't working. Time to change the rules?

I think you are rather disingenuous, there are other National Competitions where the team numbers are not necessarily high. Harvester, Compass Sport Cup to name a couple. I would suggest that this is because generally speaking clubs cannot be arsed to put the effort in to getting a team together unless they think they can "compete" at the front end or it is geographically close by.

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm guessing the number of clubs is not so different to the numbers entering the Yvette Baker Trophy.

Generally, there are not many clubs with sufficient interested/motivated juniors. I've found the Peter Palmers to be inclusive, the rules are generally written to be inclusive, I would suggest that Graeme approach the organisers with his club combination team and ask if the can be included competitively.

At worst the organisers could ask the club captains who have entered whether they have any objection. Difficult to see anyone objecting unless of coarse you have hand-picked the Scottish Junior Squad! Which I think the rules take care of this.

[MIE]

It might be a great competition for a large minority, but as a national competition, it isn't working. Time to change the rules?

I think you are rather disingenuous, there are other National Competitions where the team numbers are not necessarily high. Harvester, Compass Sport Cup to name a couple. I would suggest that this is because generally speaking clubs cannot be arsed to put the effort in to getting a team together unless they think they can "compete" at the front end or it is geographically close by.

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm guessing the number of clubs is not so different to the numbers entering the Yvette Baker Trophy.

The 2013 Harvester had 51 teams entered from 25 clubs. As the Harvester is
comparable (sort of) to the PPR then these are the numbers to compare.

The CompassSport Cup/Trophy doesn't really compare too well as there are
"regional" "heats" so many clubs are prepared to enter even if they think that
they will not get through to the Final(s).

[SJC]

The 2013 Harvester had 51 teams entered from 25 clubs. As the Harvester is
comparable (sort of) to the PPR then these are the numbers to compare.

Given the ratio of juniors to seniors in BOF this suggests that the peter palmer relays does a relatively good job of attracting entries.

[SeanC]

there are other National Competitions where the team numbers are not necessarily high. Harvester, Compass Sport Cup to name a couple. I would suggest that this is because generally speaking clubs cannot be arsed to put the effort in to getting a team together unless they think they can "compete" at the front end or it is geographically close by.

Well similar problems affect the YBT and the Harvesters. Perhaps it's the same problem, the rules not keeping up with demographics, or clubs getting too small for team competitions and unwilling to merge/disband? Maybe clubs and club captains "can't be arsed" as you say? Maybe it's about publicity and knowledge? The 43 clubs in England and Wales who didn't send a team last year, why not? Why didn't you try alliances or sending a n/c team?

I think for junior competitions it is perfectly reasonable to ask that no junior should be denied the opportunity of a competitive run (not necessarily for the same trophy) at one of these excellent competitions. Club mergers seems unlikely, so the best hope is with the new events and competitions committee. Sensible rule changes to promote inclusivity are win win all round, good for the juniors, good for the clubs, good for the competition, good for the event income, good for the future.

[LostAgain]

I think for junior competitions it is perfectly reasonable to ask that no junior should be denied the opportunity of a competitive run (not necessarily for the same trophy) at one of these excellent competitions. Club mergers seems unlikely, so the best hope is with the new events and competitions committee. Sensible rule changes to promote inclusivity are win win all round, good for the juniors, good for the clubs, good for the competition, good for the event income, good for the future.

What do you suggest that is not already being done or available within the current rules framework?

[SeanC]

It's a fact that the existing rules (regarding club alliances and the like) have not succeeded in their aim, despite good intention. Number of alliances last year = 0, number of non-competitive clubs = 0.

I've got a couple of ideas, but haven't got time to type them in now, a bit later or in a few days. Perhaps some others can give theirs?

[graeme]

Perhaps some others can give theirs?

Any team comprising 6 children 18- is competitive.

It is the responsibility of the team manager to ensure the children are competent to complete their assigned course and to behave reasonably overnight.

Trophies are awarded to the fastest teams meeting certain demographic and membership criteria.

It is not the intention for Regional 'elite' teams to be formed. Any attempt to do so may lead to their disqualification, merciless mocking by event officials and the general public alike, and subsequent feeding to the leopards.

[NeilC]

It's a fact that the existing rules (regarding club alliances and the like) have not succeeded in their aim, despite good intention. Number of alliances last year = 0, number of non-competitive clubs = 0.

Actually team 20 last year (SO B) was an alliance between SO and SAX. It seems likely that the team named NOC DVO Misfits was also an alliance.

[RJ]

Speaking for myself (and not necessarily for the organiser, but I'll speak to her asap!) I will raise a non-perpetual slate trophy for the best non-competitive team on the day to be presented with the rest of the trophies. The non competitive teams (within the age and gender guidelines with a little discretion!) then can have something to fight for and a reason to turn up.

The competition has a great atmosphere and those juniors who have gone in the past have long and precious memories of their trip and the event. It is the parents/adults who do the work to get the teams there, and adults who do the work to stage the event. I'm sure they are more than happy to put the effort in to allow juniors to enjoy themselves. Keep the future alive!

We (WCOC team) would all like to see 30+ rather than 10 teams come to the event.

[ifititches]

Club alliances are good if they allow juniors to go who otherwise couldn't, but Graham's tongue-in-cheek comment about the mocking of artifiacially constructed "elite" type teams sets off alarm bells for me. The first few PPR that I took teams to were completely marred for the juniors by the presence of such teams. I'm sure it was amazing fun for the individuals in those teams, but it made it impossible to follow the results as most of the leading teams were non-competitive. The excitement of the real competition was lost, as the juniors really only saw that there was no hope of their team being "in the lead" or even "up with the leaders" as "non-competitive" doesn't mean that the teams are invisible. In my opinion, the competition was hugely more enjoyable once the rules had been changed.

re lowering the age for eligible competitors, I can see your point,as I've equally come across the keen, mature 10 year old scenario. But I think that shortage of team members should just be a spur for the clubs to go out and increase their junior participation, rather than extend the age limits. Anticipation of being old enough to join in the fun is no bad thing! Lots of other activities have age-related milestones which it feels good to reach and my personal feeling is that the age range currently included is just right to maximise chances of competitors (and team management) enjoying the night.

[SeanC]

I think Graeme is suggesting that there are separate competitions for whole club teams and mixed club teams. I can't see the problem with that. It's no different to the harvesters where there are handicap teams and open teams. Just make sure that the whole club competition is the one with the bigger prestige/bigger trophy/always announced first at prize giving etc. If it makes it less confusing let the two competitions have different changeover pens.

OK, I got that wrong about last year's combined teams. But the two cases mentioned was a club making up a second team. These are few in number but something is better than nothing. Hypothetically there may still have been juniors from Saxons (or SO) who couldn't get a place because they couldn't make a team. Not to mention the other SE clubs who didn't go: MV, DFOK, CHIG, LOK, GO, SLOW (plus SN* and HAVOC*). DFOK, CHIG, SLOW and LOK each have about 2 juniors who would be interested in going. Why can't we let them go (properly, competitively)?

(RJ, well done, please keep us updated, you might need to draft an email and send to all the clubs, asking them to email all their members. Good publicity opportunity anyway )

*in two regions.

[roadrunner]

How about just dropping the restriction to "small" clubs, since as some have already said, some large clubs don't have many juniors:

1.4 Combined teams
1.4.1 Combined teams can only be made up from two clubs that are either from the same association or are geographically adjacent.
1.4.2 Clubs should enter their own teams in preference to combined teams. However, if a club is able to enter one or more complete teams, it may then combine with another club to form a second (or third, fourth etc) competitive team.
1.4.3 deleted
1.4.4 In circumstances where combined teams are formed it is assumed that clubs will pick their best runners for their own club team or teams before seeking to combine with a neighbouring club to give their 'spare' junior orienteers the opportunity to run in the competition. Any attempt by clubs to do otherwise will lead to their disqualification. The spirit of the competition is, therefore, that clubs form teams from their own members
and are encouraged to develop their own club juniors. It is not the intention for
Regional 'elite' teams to be formed.
1.4.5 Non-competitive teams may be allowed to take part at the discretion of the event organiser.

[SeanC]

That's better than the current rules, but no where near as neat, understandable and sellable as Graeme's idea.

One more to the mix.

Have permanent junior alliances that are effectively their own junior clubs. An alliance junior club must not exceed the size of the largest non-alliance club. These alliances are allowed to compete as first rate clubs in all BOF junior competitions (YBT, relays, Peter Palmer).

Many clubs are 90% over 45's and a handful of juniors. I doubt whether my son will want to go orienteering in his teenage years if it's just his Dad and (by then) a load of over 55's and maybe one or two other DFOK juniors he might see if he's lucky. Maybe my club could merge with SAXONS or SLOW, but that seems very unlikely if it's just for the juniors. If he's keen I could get him to join SO or HH (as some juniors in this situation have done in the past), but without inspiring competitions and some mates he may have given up by then. Also those clubs are 80 miles away, you'd really want your friends to be more local.

Junior alliances could be more than just a way of accessing a few junior events, they could become a social group, a group with enough critical mass to justify coaching, a junior club without the pain of merging clubs. Each alliance could have it's own junior captain and since access to the YBT and PP would be normal and easy to achieve, he or she is more likely "to be arsed" to promote it and organise it to the juniors.

So in the South East alliances might be something like this:

SO, MV
CHIG, LOK, HH
GO, SN
DFOK, SLOW, SAX

[Big Jon]

Anyone got a link to a copy of the Hawes End map? I've tried the WCOC site and there don't appear to be any route gadget links.......
Keen to give the Maroc juniors every advantage possible

[keever]

Anyone got a link to a copy of the Hawes End map?

Look harder