New 4-tier Event rules and guidlines

[graeme]

3 level B events in the South of England
Are all these events truly what the 4 level lobby had in mind?

I wouldn't claim to speak for them, but we are getting precisely what awk and the event structure review group identified:
A well-defined top tier of National events (A).
A well defined bottom tier of local events (D).
And an inability to consistently define the boundary between B and C.
It's a definite improvement on muddling C and D - we should thank the 4-tier lobby for making the 3-tier system work

[Clive Coles]

I agree that by and large clubs have moved their old level 2 events into level B. This is not what I hoped would happen but I am not surprised.

I believe there can, and should, be a difference between level B and level C events other than cost of entry and the provision of pre-entries. In a level B event I think we should expect.

1) an area that has not been overused and become familiar to a high number of orienteers.

2) a new area or recent (re) survey and map that has been revised to reflect the vegetation and runability of the area appropriate to the date of the event.

3) the area to support some planning route choice options; preferably not one that relies on significant dead path runs which link together small areas of limited technical merit.

4) the level B rules to be observed. We can be more pragmatic and relaxed about level C events but let's make level B events something special.



Interestingly, on the question of events which attract high numbers the EA experience is obviously different to some other areas of the country.

The SMOC level B event in Salsey last weekend attracted 135 runners. The SOS Writtle pre-entries for next weekend now stand at around 125. By contrast our clubs last two Level 3/C colour coded events attracted West Harling (253 runners) and Knettishall (243 runners).

SMOC were unlucky at Salsey as BOF re-scheduled the Yvette Baker Final for the same date and EA had 2 clubs in that final. But the underlying trend is in my mind quite clear.

a) colour code Level C events are as popular as ever, ( call them District if you like)
b) level C events provide good value for money. For level B events you are usually charged £2 more to cover processing costs and surcharged a further £2 if you try to enter on the day.
c) pre-entries therefore put off a number of regular orienteers.
d) fewer orienteers are prepared to travel great distances to enter a more prestigeous event.

By all means lets have some high quality level B events in our fixture programme, but clubs should not just jump on the level B bandwaggon in the hope they can increase their income.

We make good use of both level C for our full colour coded events (3 per season) and level D for our local mid week (2 course) events ( a series of 6) and 2 limited colour coded CATI fixtures each year. If there is a demand we may stage a level B event sometime in the future.

[NeilC]

The SMOC level B event in Salsey last weekend attracted 135 runners.

Some might be surprised that they got that many
http://www.attackpoint.org/log.jsp/user_5121

One definition of a Level B event that I've heard is that you would drive past a Level C event to go there. Not quite there yet.

[greywolf]

Some might be surprised that they got that many
http://www.attackpoint.org/log.jsp/user_5121

Brilliant review & routegadget reveals a truly appalling Very Long Orange masquerading as Brown... Seems that's what's missing from the 4-tier event rules and guidelines is any indication of whose job it is to say "No, that's sh*t, you can't have that at Level B"

(although the elite women are obv running a no-nonsense review system: see also http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/ ... 2011-01-16)

[SJC]

One definition of a Level B event that I've heard is that you would drive past a Level C event to go there. Not quite there yet.

East Anglia League Event.
Normal colour coded event courses up to Brown.
Surely someone in the club / region must have realised it was only a level C event.
Give them the benefit of the doubt that this was just a hangover from an event registered at level 2 last year.

[Red Adder]

I didn't go to the Salcey event but some of the slagging off going on here or referenced sites is hardly going to encourage people to give of their time to put on events for the rest of us.

Also the brown is not of orange standard as it clearly has TD 4 legs/control sites eg 17-18 [TD 4 is about the best you will get in EA.]

[NeilC]

Like most orienteering areas Salcey has something to offer (I actually have quite fond memories of the 12km+ M21 course that Roger Williams planned there some years ago). The fact is though that it has a bit of a reputation and so attempting to make simple correlations between event level and attendance is pointless at this stage whilst the new system is bedding down and there are so many parameters involved.

[IanD]

Thought the planning at Salcey was excellent, on the Blue course I hardly used paths for the first two-thirds of the course (then there was some path running around a particularly grotty bit). Brown looks pretty similar with a few extra loops.

I did comment at the finish that the forest did not justify a Level B grading. It's not just that the forest has almost no contours and is largely 'green'', but also that the green is liberally sprinkled with thorn bushes. In reply, it was pointed out that the definitions of the various levels say nothing about quality of terrain.

Having run at Salcey once before, I was actually pleasantly surprised this time, it wasn't as horrible as I was expecting. And before you ask, I only ran at this event because I was literally driving past the edge of the map anyway.

However I would say that if you put on a Level B in a grotty forest, you deserve some stick, even if is the forest is the best in your area and the planner has got the best out of it. I do agree with Clive, Level B should be something a little bit special, not just every club's biggest event of the year.

[Wayward-O]

The scheduling of Level B events is co-ordinated by the National Fixtures Group, which has responsibility for agreeing the events put forward by the Constituent Associations through their Fixtures Secretaries. They should work together to ensure a balanced programme of events across the country and throughout the year.

So is this system not working? Surely National Fixtures Group should ensure that there are not too many Level B events and definitely not 3 in the South of England on the same day.

In order for Level B to stand for anything, then these must be maintained as the quality events, TD5 terrain, best planners and recent map update etc. and, to some extent, a scarcity value. If the standard is not maintained, then it will tend to tarnish them and people will view Level B events as over-priced Level C events.

To attract the large, competitive, entries commensurate with the intended competition standard, any potential competitor should only have one Level B event that they could realistically attend on any Sunday (without having to spend a night away from home).

[RJ]

An interesting dilemma!

However, the areas to be used for events of whatever level are chosen by the club committee, or at least ratified by them. It might be that the committee members never hear or see written comments on the event. If they are the stereotypical committee member then they will be unaware of Attackpoint!

Whilst it is a good idea to point criticism in the direction of the committee of the club..... it is very difficult to do that constructively, balancing the good comments with the bad. But certainly the club should be aware of the shortcomings or otherwise of the area and decide 'correctly' to allocate the area to the appropriate level of event.

We could do with an O-Google that shows all comments.

In this day and age a level C event can earn just as much money for a club as a level B. So the desire to 'make a fortune' from a level B event should not be a motivating factor. Committees need to be more honest when they choose the area, and in fact more honest when it comes to asking for level B status.

Just because Salcey is on their doorstep and they personally enjoy it, as they know all the awful bits, and avoid running through spiky trees/bushes, they should be more responsible and make good, sensible choices for the level of event to use the area for.

I have been to quite a few awful areas over the years. I don't go back, and I'm very wary of that club for the future. The consequence of poor area selection merely means the sport fails to move forward and expand. It is in all our interests to create good quality level B events to showcase the sport and retain a top class competitive field at our better events. JB is obviously upset by the experience she has had.... she tells others..... the sport loses out!!

[Roger]

14 Jan 1990, Salcey Forest.

M21A 14.2km 85m 25 controls.
101:38, 11th / 85 + 25 DNF/DSQ.
Gold standard 114:47, i.e. the top three averaged just under 92 minutes.

I wonder how many of those 110 (!) M21A runners have been back?

[Red Adder]

We are now seeing what I feared would happen with the 4 tier system - Cat B used for over-priced events when very strong quality of terrain / planning standards should have been instituted. (And how much did I hate it when in the controller's notes at a £ 12 event mentioned that really the area should have been re-mapped - at £ 12 that is a very minimum I would expect in this day and age)

This doesn't take much to achieve really - just a bit of realism (honesty ?) from club committees. My club acknowledges that we don't have the quality of land to put on a cat B and therefore concentrates on £6 CAT C s and £2 Cat Ds - and at all the former and most of the latter in the past 5 years or more have used a fully updated map.

And if they don't then the external controller should tactfully decline to officiate on an area where such standrads can not be met.

[NeilC]

14 Jan 1990, Salcey Forest.
M21A 14.2km 85m 25 controls.
101:38, 11th / 85 + 25 DNF/DSQ.

109:52 28th - similar to the amount that you normally beat me by now Roger.

[Clive Coles]

The role of the National Fixtures group is to co-ordinate the scheduling of level B events. The rule does not state they are responsible for the assessment and quality of the area and delivery in accordance with the rules.

And there in lies the problem ~ if the club wants to put on a level B event there is very little the NFS or even a Association Fixture secretary can do to ensure expectations are met. The Controller could recommend that an event is downgraded once he looks at the map and runs the area ~ I am not sure I can recal when I was last aware this had happened.

So... in practice it has to be the club who need to be honest ~ they need to ensure the quality of the event. If they fail to deliver appropriate standards orienteers will remember ~ they will stop coming to level B events those clubs stage in the future.

It's early days for the 4-tier system. Our current surplus of Level B events has been caused in part by BOF's attempt to get clubs to stage more old level 2 regional events under the old 3-tier set up. The National Fixtures group suddenly found more and more clubs trying to stage regional events on the same day. Their ability to regulate adjacent association conflicts became compromised. I suspect come this time next year, order will have been restored and there will be fewer level B events being scheduled.

[GML]

The role of the National Fixtures group is to co-ordinate the scheduling of level B events. The rule does not state they are responsible for the assessment and quality of the area and delivery in accordance with the rules.

May not be the role of the National Fixtures group Clive, but Event Guideline A does say that for Level B events an unnamed "National body" "assesses the suitability of the terrain for the event through the event Controller's assessment". Does anyone know which "National body" this is intended to be, and how controllers of Level B events are supposed to communicate their assessment?