Club Eligibility

[ifititches]

I was just going to reply that Neil could get this year's team details from Hocolite!

Please could a moderator put these posts under some more relevant heading (like "eligibility rules" or something) so that Compass Sport Cup enthusiasts aren't suffering constant disappointments)

I'm going to add that the 2005 HOC teams were not decided until it was clear that COBOC were not going to enter a team for the Peter Palmer relays in 2005. As someone who's called Birmingham home for the last 31 years that was a disappointment to me, but I understand all the reasons behind it, after talking to COBOC members.

If you can conjure up Bigggerry (or possibly even the 2004 White Rabbit )you can hear all the story.

[NeilC]

I agree that the open /closed/ affiliated and second club membership situations need to be revisited for all the team competitions.

Personally I am quite happy with BOF rule 3.2 and assumed that it did apply to all team competitions. Indeed I propose that it should - any objections?

Allowing club-only members to run for their non-BOF registered clubs is dangerous and could obviously result in the formation of superteams as clubs offer (free) club-only membership to their top junior start squad mates. This happened unofficially a few years back which is why I believe the ban on n/c teams was introduced. It is for this reason that I find it hard to understand why second-claim club members were given approval to run by the junior competitions committee.

It is certainly the case though that there are many keen juniors out there unable to compete in the PP because their clubs can't raise a full team. Perhaps we could also propose that two (neigbouring)large clubs could merge - as is allowed for the UK relay league.

If this does become a dedicated PP thread let's use it as a forum for constructive ideas on the evolution of this excellent competition.

One of the biggest problems it faces is finding suitable venues for accomodation. When we lost the proposed initial 2005 venue I looked into the possibility of using my University - which is next to a good venue. Clearly they didn't want our custom and put up so many barriers that I gave up - thankfully Alan and BAOC came up with the alternative.

[HOCOLITE]

Neil this rule does not apply to YBT. And doesn't cover the University club situation that started this off.

Just to reiterate the situation the people concerned joined the club at the beginning of the year so as to benefit from the junior and senior activities available that their small club was unfortunately unable to provide. However we do offer support to COBOC and invited their juniors to our recent coaching session(obviously after our members).

[Guest]

Neil this rule does not apply to YBT. And doesn't cover the University club situation that started this off.

Carol, if it doesn't apply then where does it say so?

How many other people out there know that it doesn't apply? And do you think it should?

The university club situation is different because they are closed clubs and have defined membership criteria. It is perfectly reasonable for students to compete for both Uni and main clubs.

HOC offering COBOC training etc opportunities is brilliant but doesn't change the fact that they are two different open clubs and juniors must choose which one they wish to compete for.

[JackTheLad]

Hocolite wrote:

Sorry to bring this up as I've bitten back a few times but it's all the rules and that means runners being M/W12 plus.I know that that they weren't all this year, and I know in the past your club has run M10's.

Just to put the record straight on this once and for all (brassed off with the bitchin'!) Yes SO did run an M10 at the Peter Palmer several years ago when we had a different Junior Team Manager. It was wrong and an extremely bad idea (I know, I was one of the drivers and saw the resultant problems it caused). Hocolite seems to want to paint SO as a club of rule breakers which is not the case.

What's important is that there are a clear defined published set of rules that everybody can adhere to and that as many juniors as possible take part and enjoy the experience.

[HOCOLITE]

YBT rules 1.2.3 states juniors must be local or full members of club for which they are competing.
YBT rule 1.2.4 states junior can only run for one club in the competition.

To Jack the lad- unfortunately your experience youngsters has not been heeded they keep on turning up. I only mention your club re the past as the suggestions were that we broke rules, which I feel we didn't, certainly not knowingly that is why we consulted to make sure, as the rules are not explicit.

Hopefully the debates here and now after the events will lead to perhaps a revisit to the rules to clarify them it has happened before and surely is good for the sport. I believe we all want the best experience for as many juniors as possible.

[Guest]

But surely YBT rule 1.2.3 is just to emphasize that participants must be a member of some sort, i.e can't be non-members.

As a Guideline IMHO it doesn't override BOF Rule 3.2.1 about not representing more than one open club in the same year (except under various the 3.2.2 waivers)

[MarkC]

Personally I am quite happy with BOF rule 3.2 and assumed that it did apply to all team competitions. Indeed I propose that it should - any objections?

Rule 3.2 states "A competitor shall only compete for the open and/or closed club which they have indicated on their BOF membership form for that year" followed by some exceptional circumstances which also assume BOF membership and require notification to BOF in writing.

As a result it only makes sense for competitions where you have to be a BOF member to enter - taken literally it would imply that all non-BOF members should be declared non-competitive at all events!

[awk]

Guest is quite right. When I wrote the YBT rules, it was to allow non-BOF junior members to take part. There was no intention of overruling the BOF rule that does not allow BOF juniors to switch clubs during the year.

My attitude was that all BOF competitions are run under BOF rules unless a specific exclusion is in place. I don't think (and certainly there wasn't the intention) that there should be one here.

Perhaps we could also propose that two (neigbouring)large clubs could merge - as is allowed for the UK relay league.

This quote made me go back and look at the PPR guidelines. I was very, very sorry to read that the rule on 'small' clubs has been changed, to my mind for the worse.

The rule established a couple of years ago was that the 20 clubs with the largest BOF junior membership (on a specified date) were defined as 'large' clubs for the PPR, all others as small clubs. I did a lot of work to establish the balance, and this worked. The new rule is a complete nonsense - the size of BOF membership has no relationship to the junior membership, and the current rule leaves a lot of effectively small junior clubs in the large definition. I would strongly recommend this rule is scrapped in its current format, and the old definition or something similar included again.

[Blanka]

I think for junior competitions (mainly PP relay) it is important that we redefine clubs as 'large' and 'small' based on the number of juniors, because how many members a club has often has nothing do do with the number of juniors. And it will allow formations between clubs that need them.

PS. Could the moderators split up this debate to a thread on competition eligibility or something like that! Thanks.

[ifititches]

thanks for splitting the thread

have just had a browse of BOF rules. It looks to me that if someone has written permission from their old club, and has notified BOF, they are allowed to run for a new club the same year. Or have I oversimplified the situation (probably have)?

Can someone also clarify ( as will come up sooner or later if more schools become affiliated through BSOA membership) are school runners from affiliated schools treated as BOF members apart from the right to run for the school's BOF associated club/their school club in BOF competitions? (I probably haven't got nomenclature right there, but hopefully someone from BSOA will understand)This question also includes University clubs affiliated to local clubs, where some Uni runners are not BOF individual/family members through a home club.

I am also going to ask this question through official channels, but sometimes constructive discussion here helps me get my brain around it too.

specifically, if a school (or University) changes its BOF club association during a year, what is the position of the juniors in that club who
a) are individual /family BOF members too
b) are not individual/BOF family members.

for which BOF club do they have to run in team competitions?
Do the BOF affiliated clubs have to give permission for a swap if it happens mid-year (see above)?
Which team takes priority if they are also individual/family members?

Ugh, I hate rules, but take Neil's point that it matters if serious trophies are at stake. And if we want try (in true Clubmark spirit) to give our juniors responsibility to select and manage their club's junior teams, this has to be explained in words that it doesn't take a committee to decipher

[Guest]

Quote: I think for junior competitions (mainly PP relay) it is important that we redefine clubs as 'large' and 'small' based on the number of juniors, because how many members a club has often has nothing do do with the number of juniors. And it will allow formations between clubs that need them.

But how do you count the number of Juniors in a club ? Using the numbers shown on the BOF database will not give a true reflection of the real number of juniors in a club. It does not identify clubs where every member is also a BOF member. Neither does it take into account the number of schools working with the club as these children will not be on the BOF database either. Defining a 'small' club by the number of Juniors when there is no accurate way to measure them seems to be yet another bad rule.

[distracted]

But how do you count the number of Juniors in a club?...Defining a 'small' club by the number of Juniors when there is no accurate way to measure them seems to be yet another bad rule.

Getting the clubs to submit the data seems sensible to me. Will need dividing up into club members, members from affiliated schools etc. as there probably needs to be a measure of 'active' membership rather than total numbers, especially if there are many associated schools.

Why try getting the info off BOF in the first place when they haven't got it?

[Jude]

I know clubs with not many juniors are going to find it more difficult than larger clubs to field a team, but larger clubs also have problems. I am keen to provide a Peter Palmer run for any junior who wants one as I feel it is a good social and team building exercise.

This year we had 11 interested and last year 9, even with multiple runners on the Yellow we couldn't accommodate them all without the help of another club. One way round this could be to have multiple runners on more than one lap,I am interested to know what others think about this idea.

[HOCOLITE]

Agree with you Jude, we're probably back to the non comp, trouble is kids don't want to travel across the country in the hope someone is their to run, and often the less experienced within a region don't know anyone else. Ideally perhaps their could be a regional non comp team after clubs have selected their teams, however, as we all know the timing of the PP's straight after the summer hols makes it hard enough organising your own club and sorting transport let alone sorting out a group from a more distant area and getting them to travel with parents and others who they don't know. We also then get into the child protection area, particularly with the youngsters. It is a difficult area, which needs to be discussed, perhaps with grass root input. Not just those of us who assist in team organisation but also, from those clubs who can't get teams or can't be bothered.