BOf Committee and Group members gagged?

[Mrs H]

The travelling orienteering fraternity will make that judgement and enter what they see as value for money/time spent/travel distance/competition experienced..... etc.

Pleeeeeeeeeease will someone tell me what was stopping them from making that judgement under the 3 tier system because I just cannot see what it was.

[awk]

Nor can I!

[fish]

Ditto

And there is clearly going to be a difficulty if level 2 becomes nationally defined, as I do agree that regions should be able to define there own series (as appropriate for the region) with whatever marketing they see fit. And i think this is where RJ and awk (and Mrs H and nearly all!) are in agreement? Does all this fuss come from the original bad implementation of the 3 tier system - which was in the process of being fixed??!!

[awk]

Yes.

[LostAgain]

I really cannot see what was wrong with:

Lvl 1 : National/Championship
Lvl 2: Regional/Badge
Lvl 3: Colour Coded
Lvl 4: Local / Informal

What was hard to understand with this classification?
Am I missing something?

IMO it would be easy to utilise this system to classify different stadards of Steet O (Urban), Middle Distance or Sprint, I cannot see a problem.

You could clearly map this classification on these styles of event. You could also do the same for Night, Score or anything. I cannot see the justification for the original change to the 3 tier system.

I would agree that there was an overlap between each catagorie, but this was predominatly because of the difference in the quality of terrain available in different parts of the country.

If there was a desire to expand the Ranking list events then to include Colour Coded was fine.

I'm clearly missing something as there are some very vocal people (Nopesport posters AWK, Graeme, Mrs H) advocating the change, whom I respect, but fail to see the strength of their argument. Please educate?

[pete.owens]

If orienteering were a religion we'd be having a schism.

There would be the church of the 3 tiers- now sadly in decline, and the church of the 4 Tiers. The church of the 4 tier group appears ripe for another schism into various different sects already, dependent on which one of the holy trinity of level, ranking list or quality you follow.

Perhaps someone should tell Dan Brown - after all we do have more symbols than you could shake a stick at.

I can just visualise a finale with the main protagonists dressed in strange multicoloured outfits chasing each other round a medieval city, while attempting to decode a set of incomprehensible hieroglyphs arranged in a grid ... or maybe that would that be simply too implausible.

[Clive Coles]

Tend to agree Lostagain ~ it could be simple !

We would go back to

Level 1 controllers controlling level 1 events
Level 2 controllers controlling level 2 events
Level 3 controllers controlling level 3 events
Controlling & Planning of Level 4 events being checked out by a club colleague /mentor.

Obviously there needs to be some flexibility within the guidelines to allow for experienced controllers to gain further experience at controlling at the next highest level.

One of the problems we faced with the botched restructuring was that many grade 3 controllers were reluctant to upgrade their commmitment to control the current new style Regional events. We had very few grade 2 approved controllers. So... we worked around the problem by running most of our Sunday morning orienteering at level 3. A silly situation.

I would also like to restrict the Fixtures Group scrutiny to just Level 1 & new level 2 events.
Associations should be free to timetable, set up and authorise new level 3 events. Clubs should be free to timetable, set up and authorise level 4 events and activities.

[graeme]

Please educate?

I'll try again.

When you first think about it, you see there are events everyone cares about (top level) and informal events (bottom level). The original 3-level proposal and current 4-level pretty much agree on those. Then there are good standard events which you think are important, and good events which you dont. 4-levels. Simple.
Furthermore, all the BOF groups see a 4-tier structure too, the split being in a place to suit them, e.g.

ranking (or not)
or
fixtures coordinated nationally (or not)
or
map scales determined by IOF rules (or not)
or
more than (x) courses / less than (x) courses
or
controller level 2 (or not)
or
embargoed (or not)
or
TD5 terrain (or not, like all EAOA events)
or
aimed at people from other regions (or not, like all SOA events)
(I could go on)

I have my own personal 4-tier preference too (I'll spare you).

The trouble is, as the Event structure WP found after all our consultations, and the 4-tier people are now beginning to realise, there is no agreement on which of these basically good events are important. Even if you haven't spent hours talking to people, hundreds of nopesport posts will surely tell you that! Given the multi-facetted nature of what makes an event important to different people, it's not surprising there is no a single dividing line.

The solution the WP came up with was that ther should be some general "standards" which make a good event, and we now pretty much take for granted...

Recent full colour ISSOM/ISOM map, some course(s) as technically difficult as possible, controller, epunching, web results, toilets.

Beyond that, we felt that BOF-central should not dictate the division between basically good events, that would be up to regions. Nor should BOF-central tell you that you had to have either 14 or 7 courses. Or that you must make people of a particular age or gender non-competitive on their chosen course.

Personally, I think the whole thing has become a waste of time. "Level 1" is fairly easy to define, but completely pointless because all those events have their own guidelines anyway. In fact, I've had no cause ever to look at the BOF level definitions despite having been an official at a dozen or so events in the last year, from Internationals and world ranking to honesty-based street races (note to competitions review: these latter had the strongest fields)

IMO, only the division between formal and informal is worth having. Would anyone like to join my 2-level lobby?

[pete.owens]

Might I suggest that level 3 events are left to a club or several adjacent clubs to decide which of their events are at this level, and to decide the nature of the competition, which would be to suit their own local situations.

So ... exactly how level 3 events are specified under the existing 3 level structure

Level 2 events should be vetted by the region, with some sort of overall quality control decided within the region. That way these events will be 'moderated' to some extent and the orienteers who will travel some distance to the events will be reassured that they are of the 'usual' standard that that region puts on. Regions might even want to grade them 1-5 stars depending on the 'quality' of the area, whether the area is new or remapped etc etc.

So pretty much how level 2 events are specified under the existing 3 level structure, but without the minimum centrally specified organisational standards.

There is real potential here to set quality standards within a region so that the travelling competitor has the confidence, not just to enter the event, but to treat it as a rare opportunity to get top class competition. It is up to the regions to promote what they have..... whatever sort of competition is appropriate in that region.

One of the main arguments listed by the proposers of the motion was the confusion caused by different regions regions interpreting the guidelines differently and the need for consistency. (even if this inconsistency was mainly due to one particular region effectively boycotting the new structure). This really points to the new level 2 being specified at the national level.

The target for the event level is also aimed at national competitions (the Harvester was frequently cited, but also things such as CSC final, JIRCs and so on). again this points to level 2 being a national level.

If your aim is to provide travelling competitors with a guarantee that it is worth travelling to the other end of the country for top class event then I would have thought that would also call for a national standard. Imagine venturing to an unfamiliar venue somewhere in the south reassured by SCOAs rigorous L2 quality standards for terraine, mapping, controlling, catering, or whatever only to discover that the venue was across the border under the much laxer remit of SEOA.

[Mrs H]

Lost Again, my own dilemma with old style Badge events was that I could not be competitive (feel I was in a competition, which I enjoy) on a course I enjoyed. I could enjoy the competition on the long course - but not enjoy the course because it was too long (and no I don't mean I was finishing last I could still make it well into the top half of the field), or enjoy the course on the short course but not the competition because frequently there would be only 3 or 4 people on it and I frequently did better than I deserved and the courses were too short anyway.

I wanted to do something in between but could not be competitive with women 15 years younger than me or allowed to be competitive with women 15 years older.

I was not alone in this - lots of people found it hard to slot into the rigid age class frame work and yet wanted to be offered better courses on better areas with better organisation and more social opportunities than a simple colour coded event might or might not provide.

Technological advances mean that there are no longer any material differences between colour coded and badge so opening up the whole range - clearly labelled 7, 9 or 19 courses, with optional age classes mapped onto them and any other bells and whistles you can think of provides a continuous sliding scale of events in L2. There is no obvious place to put a divide.

[awk]

The target for the event level is also aimed at national competitions (the Harvester was frequently cited, but also things such as CSC final, JIRCs and so on). again this points to level 2 being a national level.

I agree, but couldn't (and still can't) see the point of worrying about these; as with the Level 1 events discussed by Graeme, they all have their own guidelines, so don't need a specific level descriptor or label. People go to them (or not) because they are the Harvester, the CSC, the JIRC etc. For years, the YBT and FCC finals were run at a wide variety of different 'level' events with no controversy or problem; I think we even had the first two FCC finals as C5s, but people travelled from all over because it was the FCC final. People will equally travel to NWOA's regional league events, not because they are L2 (I'll bet hardly anybody even notices), but because they carry the NWOA brand on them (and even then, it'll depend on the terrain!).

If your aim is to provide travelling competitors with a guarantee that it is worth travelling to the other end of the country for top class event then I would have thought that would also call for a national standard.

Perhaps, but nobody can agree what that standard should be! Leaving it to the associations is simply using the branding method by another way: we will simply know they are the 'best' that association can put on, whatever that best is, which will work.

One of the great strengths of orienteering in this country is the variety: we are blessed with a fantastic range of terrain in a relatively very small space. That is now being accompanied by a vey welcome diversification in the types and styles of events that are being put on. Imposing national level descriptors for all but national events (and they're dealt with individually anyway, so are unnecessary) would be to put a ridiculous strait-jacket on all of that. To my mind, the best way of dealing with that was the three tier scheme - Graeme's excellent post showed why. A second best would be to leave the differentiation to associations to agree locally. I only hope that the way this has all come about doesn't prevent that happening.

[Clive Coles]

AWK wrote...

To my mind, the best way of dealing with that was the three tier scheme - Graeme's excellent post showed why. A second best would be to leave the differentiation to associations to agree locally.

But like it or not the membership vote was cast in favour of a 4 tier system. So we need to move forward and address the critical issue : what is the differentiator between new level 2 and new level 3 ?

In the early days we used to talk about "quality" events: now we seem to be debating what constitutes a "worth travelling to event". 'Tis very difficult to distil any sort of agreement from these posts as to how to define the dividing line between new levels 2 & 3.

I favour AWK's second best approach. Let the Association's clubs decide which events from their programme they wish to promote to the wider audience. I am sure this will result in some regions staging more level 2 events than others but... so what. If the events are worth travellling to that's great.

If Associations/clubs promote events will fail to live up to expectations folk will not bother to travel to their next so called quality event. This is nothing new ~ I stopped going to some long running "branded" fixtures many years ago after some disappointing experiences.

Whilst this debate is going on clubs around the country are just getting on with organising a diverse programme of events to provide all shades of competitive challenge for 2011 and beyond. It's the clubs who deliver. BOF officials seem to have rearranged the deckchairs and have reignited old scores.

The various BOF committees will doubtless continue their deliberations right the way through to 1st January next year. Perhaps they will soon stop recriminations and come up with something we can all adopt this time.

[LostAgain]

my own dilemma with old style Badge events was that I could not be competitive (feel I was in a competition, which I enjoy) on a course I enjoyed.

Mrs H the old "Badge classification" could easily have been adapted to meet your requirement. When planning these events approx. 12 courses are planned and then "Age" Groups were placed against the course.

I think your desire would be met by showing the results by course and age, effectively what we are doing now and allowing ranking points to be gained from all TD5 Level 1 - 3 courses. Local (level 4) being the only events not attracting points. I think it has been mentioned that runing down to TD1-TD4 courses should possibly preclude ranking points.

I think the allocation of ranking points at different formats may need reviewing. Not sure street O (Urban), Sprint, Middle and classic are necessarily comparable. It may be worth having an Urban/Sprint Ranking points list and a short/middle/classic. This may need relooking at once the list has bedded in.

[andypat]

I like that idea of ranking for different types of O. Although maybe I'd make each one a subset of the main one rather than completely distinct.

[frog]

For our club the initial problem with the 3 tier system was the insistence on a 1y embargo and level 2 controller for level 2 events. Embargos in areas with lots of maps with commercial forestry are a pain as you get a new map and it's rapidly out of date with felling/ thinning/ windblow so you need to get your moneys worth.
Once the embargo/ controller issue became more flexible clubs started to be happy for their good colour coded events to move up a level particularly when that meant the punters got ranking points.
The number of levels thing I do find fairly academic in general though. I choose my events by my knowledge of the area/ reading the event blurb/ when I have the time to go.
I'll go to most SoSOLs I can make regardless of what grade they end up being. I think it's handy if our regional fixtures guy has an overall view on when they occur to keep the calender sensible.