New Event Structure

[jab]

My initial reading (whenever it was first published) of paragraph 1.3 in Revised Guideline A on the BOF website:
"1.3 Age class competition
For consistency with international and championship competitions some indication of which Colour courses are appropriate for which age classes should be given in the pre-event information. These are not prescriptive, but may be used, e.g. to determine the awarding of prizes and awards. Events attracting a significant foreign entry, may wish to use the standard IOF age classes. Such events should base their class combinations and course length ratios on the table in Guideline C: Championship Events"

was that events like the 6 Days would remain unaffected. Re-reading that paragraph today, am I correct in thinking that the long term intention for the 6 days is that anyone can enter any course but only win prizes on their officially recommended course? Or was my initial reading correct? Certainly the course information on the 6 days website is not quite consistent with the printed flyer that arrived with Focus - the printed version says confidently that the classes are age classes whilst the website now says that it is "planned at present to offer age class courses".

I would be interested to know whether anyone involved with the 6 Days feels that a move to more open entries would increase/decrease/have no impact upon overseas participation? (I am not for or against any changes in principle, just interested).

[NeilC]

The review had a fairly clear picture. Level 2 was a proper event, you could expect epunching, overprinted maps, someone checking the controls were in the right place etc.

Level 3 was more informal, no controlling, (master) maps printed off at home, amatuer mapping, hope the controls are in the right place, but be laid back about it if not, pin/honesty punching.

The review worked hard to avoid creating incentives to downgrade good events. The L2 controller issue has put those perverse incentives back again.

So what did the review propose concerning controlling?

Clearly there are never going to be enough grade 2 controllers to cover all the proposed standard/level 2 events therefore they would have to use grade 3 controllers. Not ideal for events like the Scottish Six Days. The common sense approach would be to appoint grade 2 controllers to the more important events but this of course would mean accepting that some standard/level 2 events were more equal than others, which itself seems to go against the review's ideology.

[DM]

Graeme,

If that is really the distinction between L2 and L3 then it will mean a lot of events taking a backward step. The L3 are meant to be the events (local ones) that get more people into the sport. If I was starting out and found that a good run had been ruined by a wrongly placed control I would pretty quickly start looking for something else to do.

Our local events have used SI and preprinted maps for some years now, I really can't see us going back to pin punch and master maps.

Surely L3 should be a smaller version of L2 (ie on smaller but still OK areas) but with the same attention to detail?

[graeme]

So what did the review propose concerning controlling?

Ultimately nothing. I proposed abolishing one grade (i.e. you're either a novice controller or and experienced one. Personally, I don't see much difference in expertise between the current grade 2 and grade 1 lists. But it was ultimately regarded as off-remit

The L3 are meant to be the events (local ones) that get more people into the sport.

No no no no no no no no no!

We felt that the list of things defining level 2 (preprinted maps, SI) was EXACTLY what would encourage people into the sport. We should NOT designate the events designed to encourage newcomers as third-rate.

Newcomers should be encouraged with good quality events, and good quality events should be level 2 - end of story.

BUT

There should be scope for informal events, where people can try out new formats, novices can plan etc., new mappers can map, someone can bung out a few controls for what's essentially an open training event etc. Like you said, these sort of events are usually NOT suitable for beginners, and can be quite off-putting. We need a label to tell people that - and that's what level 3 is.

I have no idea now whether BOF intends to ban this sort of low-key event, or simply confuse newcomers by giving it the same status as good quality events for newcomers.

[geomorph]

Its no wonder many of us are still confused about event levels and types of courses offered.

It was very interesting to read Graeme's comments about the purpose of a level. I interpret this as 1= showcase, 2=fully formal, 3=ad-hoc formats and standards.
Is everybody clear how this maps to National, Regional, Local?

If as Graeme suggests 2 is the entry point, then the support functions to ensure retention of newcomers will also need to be fully geared up, which will be a change in approach for some operations, and may increase the volunteer demand level significantly.

Don't therefore like the use of numbers alone to describe a level as it is not intuitive to the newcomer that the entrance level is 2 (but then 1 and 5 can be confused as to top and bottom).

Please somebody suggest a valid alternative.

[Snail]

Clearly with only two levels below 'championship' there will be more variation within these than exists currently, and the critical point seems to be where to draw the dividing line between levels 2 and 3.

Perhaps a simple way of doing this is whether or not there is "external" validation of the event quality, ie an independent controller.

So if your current "C4" event has an external controller, consider classing it as level 2. If it doesn't, and this seems to be more common in some areas than others, it has to be level 3. I have been very disappointed in the past to travel to "C4" events, only to find that an "internal" controller hasn't really done their job properly.

Agree with NeilC that this fudges the issue of what "grade" of controller is appropriate. But that is something that should perhaps be addressed by the Rules committeee and /or regional representatives. There is an argument that controller appointments should be more based on experience than on formal grade, and it wouldn't be difficult for regions to indicate which of their controllers they consider have the experience to cover larger / more significant events.

[RJ]

The L3 are meant to be the events (local ones) that get more people into the sport.

No no no no no no no no no!

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!

L3 events are exactly the level for entry of new people. L1 events are national, L2 are regional and L3 events are local. LOCAL is where you create the opportunity for new members.... you attract people from the local audience.... those people who you know live in your catchment area, not a generic 'person' that some national committee decides upon.

ALL, yes ALL, of our events have pre-printed maps and use SI. Are we to call our informal events (with long, short and novice courses) level 2 events just because they are good? No.... they are L3 events because they are LOCAL, and targetted at LOCAL people.

I asked, graeme, some time ago whether you were sure about what the review was trying to do. It looks like you have made a right mess of the event structure. I sincerely hope that when it settles down it shows some sign of commonsense and easily recognisable structure. I'm very disappointed so far. OK, colour coded courses and ability based competition at L2 is a good move forward. I disagree that L2 is the place to enter the sport. L3 informal club events close to where you live is the place to try the sport.

[geomorph]

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!

L3 events are exactly the level for entry of new people. L1 events are national, L2 are regional and L3 events are local. LOCAL is where you create the opportunity for new members.... you attract people from the local audience.... those people who you know live in your catchment area, not a generic 'person' that some national committee decides upon.

ALL, yes ALL, of our events have pre-printed maps and use SI. Are we to call our informal events (with long, short and novice courses) level 2 events just because they are good? No.... they are L3 events because they are LOCAL, and targetted at LOCAL people.

You still need a separator for L3's of the 'quality applicable to a newcomer' from the 'oddball/totally informal' that Graeme mentions. Grouping these two under one designator is marketing madness. Maybe Graeme's ones are level Q (following on the old car registration designator for non-standard builds).

[RichT]

Gosh.

Why don't we have 5 level of events
L1 British & JK
L2 Regional Champs
L3 Regional
L4 Local
L5 Other

where Regional & Local are colour based and Championships are age based .
Others can come with a health warning .

I'm glad I'm only involved in the fixtures side . . .

[awk]

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!

I do agree RJ that local events are those that are needed for beginners, and it maybe that all your L3 events are targeted and appropriate for beginners (great!), but the idea behind L3 was that they were of a flexibility that allowed new things (or people) to be tried in an informal situation, whilst L2 events are externally controlled, conform to colours etc. etc. (and colours will allow short/middle/long distance events).

But it doesn't necessarily mean that all L3 events are necessarily suitable for beginners, whilst L2 events, because they hit standards, mostly will. However, the designation L1/2/3 was never intended to be part of how an event is marketed - they are organisational standards. How you market your events is up to you.

It's why I'm unhappy at calling events Local, Regional, National. To my mind, local is a geographical designation, not a standards designation.

So, I disagree with this entirely:

L3 events are exactly the level for entry of new people. L1 events are national, L2 are regional and L3 events are local.

Of course L2 events can be local, and can (should?) be used to promote the sport locally. We saw L1 as the one area that really doesn't target accessibility to newcomers: these are the championships aimed at the experienced competitors.

ALL, yes ALL, of our events have pre-printed maps and use SI. Are we to call our informal events (with long, short and novice courses) level 2 events just because they are good? No.... they are L3 events because they are LOCAL, and targetted at LOCAL people.

No, they are L3 events because they don't have a full range of TDs, because they don't have a controller (?), because they aren't at L2.

It looks like you have made a right mess of the event structure.

Only because you interpret differently to what ERG agreed on. Unfortunately, it looks as if BOF are encouraging that interpretation, so I can't criticise.

[redkite]

Might be a daft question, but why are we changing the structure? How do the events (or the sport) benefit from the proposed changes?

[geomorph]

Might be a daft question, but why are we changing the structure? How do the events (or the sport) benefit from the proposed changes?

this is the point of origin document - there's a benefits statement in there

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/ConsultationdocumentonReviewofEventStructure.pdf

[RJ]

Consultation Document said.........
Local events
Annually over 1000 Level 5 events are staged by clubs either as single events or as parts of local series. These are the entry point for new orienteers and hugely important for the growth of the sport. The review group felt that clubs should be left alone to put on a wide range of local activities throughout the year during the week, at night and at weekends. Strategic guidance and promotion of best practice should be the role of Development Committee.

Don't understand your reply awk. L3, Local events attract locals. L2 events are regional, whether you like it or not..... and attract people from the regions immediately adjacent to the club's event. L1 events are national. Why awk can't the thinking just be that simple?

[DM]

I am;

1) Still confused
2) Off to enjoy my undersubscribed course tomorrow

[distracted]

The original document geomorph links gives the recommendations is the work of the original events structure review - I do not think that this is the same group responsible for implementation(events committee, fixtures group, rules group?) - backed up by the fact that several of the "contributors" to that original paper are posting here with conflicting views...

The impression that I got from the original review - maybe more how I wanted to interpret things? - was that a local event was something akin to the MADO initiative, the low key Saturday series type events, "summer series" type events, come-and-try-its etc. An event with a limited range of courses that can be put on *easily* by one or two people.

I'm sure I'm echoing the view of development committee here in saying that the new structure should be *encouraging* clubs to put on a lot of local, low-effort, low-key events, in and around large population centres. A club should not in any way be put off from putting on these events - something that added red tape, like the need for a controller, could well do. If this isn't what is being implemented in the new structure then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere in the chain as I can't see how this then fits in...

I like Graeme's idea re: controlling - why are we trying to twist an old system to fit the new one? With a change in event structure there should be at least a redefinition of controller levels so that the two fit neatly together...