New Event Structure

[DJM]

A few posts ago, awk said

if, as the overview states, there is a requirement for a Grade 3 controller for all L3 events then someone has lost touch with real life. All L3 events??

And elsewhere in this thread there seems to be the assumption that Levels 1, 2 and 3 equate to Grades 1, 2 and 3 of controller, but I'm struggling to find evidence that this has been decided and would be grateful to be pointed to a document which confirms this.

Draft Guideline A (the "overview") merely states that National Events will have high quality controlling, whilst Draft Guideline B asks us to refer to Appendix A (1.4.1) to find the level of controller required.

Now Appendix A still refers to the old five levels of event and cannot be mapped onto a 3 level model. So, to my simple mind, the issue (and it's a very tricky one) of who controls what level events has yet to be clarified.

[Scott]

Draft Guideline A (the "overview") merely states that National Events will have high quality controlling

3.8 National events will require a Grade 1 Controller.
...
4.6 Regional events will require a Grade 2 Controller.
...
5.4 Local events will require a Grade 3 Controller to carry out the appropriate tasks for the size and purpose of the event. As a minimum this should be to confirm that the Risk Assessment for the event has been completed.

[Homer]

It is generally agreed that there is shortage of Grade 2 Controllers.

If the new event structure decrees that all L2 events need to have a Grade 2 Controller then this situation becomes even more critical. There seem to be two solutions to this problem:
1. Allow Grade 3 Controllers to control some L2 events.
2. Create more Grade 2 Controllers.

I like the logic of Grade 2 controller for L2 events and Grade 3 for L3 events, so I would be in favour of creating more Grade 2 controllers.

How do we achieve this?
I suggest we need an amnesty on some of the requirements needed before being eligible to apply as a Grade 2 Controller. We could (say for one year) remove the requirement to have attended a G2 Controllers course and to have organised an event at (current) L3. Applications would first be vetted by regional Associations, before being passed up to BOF (Rules Group?) for ratification. Hopefully this would encourage quite a number of G3 Controllers to apply for G2 status.
A bit of arm-twisting of obviously suitable candidates may well also help!

First of all though, we need a bit of clarity as to how the new event structure is to be applied. The current uncertainty will make people vary of upgrading as they won't be sure of what they are letting themselves in for.

Personally I think it's a shame if the recommendations of the working party are not accepted in full.

[EddieH]

[quote]Personally I think it's a shame if the recommendations of the working party are not accepted in full.[/quote]

I was never convinced of the need to change what we have. However I am convinced that the Working Party put a great deal of time and thought into it, and that their recomendations as a whole were excellent.

Thus I reckon that the quote above is an understatemnet - rather more than a shame.

[distracted]

It is generally agreed that there is shortage of Grade 2 Controllers...

Yes, but the main question is why try to fit an old system to the new one? Essentially what you've suggested is a re-definition of the current grades - and to be blunt this re-definition should be happening anyway!

[SeanC]

The controller issue puzzles me the most.

Last year DFOK and SAXONS put on about 40 local events. Next year we are expected to find a Grade 3 controller for all of these? And we need more of them to be grade 2. They will be busy!

In the BOF documentation there is a sentance that says that for Level 3 (local) events, a controller is required, but as a minimum to check the risk assessment. To me this sounds like a requirement to keep the insurance premium down, in which case clubs could arrange a workaround where a level 3 controller checks all the risk assessments for local events and that's it. A pain, but if it keeps the levy down.....

However if the intention is to encourage controlling on more or all aspects of these truly local events, then we would be ignoring the spirit of the recommendations if we used this workaround.

I can see the case for limited controlling on local local events, for example maybe just the beginners courses could be checked.

It's all a bit confusing. I've emailed some questions of course.

[geomorph]

Personally I think it's a shame if the recommendations of the working party are not accepted in full.

I was never convinced of the need to change what we have. However I am convinced that the Working Party put a great deal of time and thought into it, and that their recomendations as a whole were excellent.

Thus I reckon that the quote above is an understatemnet - rather more than a shame.

For me it did not go far enough as we still have, thanks to our great ability to create/adopt new formats, a very messy presentation and the point of difference between 2 & 3 is not sharp enough. I'm not in favour of then following this transition year with another transition year for another area of reform. Would have been nice to big bang.

So the big question is: have we done enough to give us 5+ years of stability and allowed sufficient flexbility to support innovation and to move it rapidly into the mainstream where appropriate. I'm not sure, but I wish I could offer up that next step - maybe you can.

[DJM]

Scott,

Thanks for explaining my confusion. I made the mistake of consulting a draft Guideline A which was not the same as the draft Guideline A on the website. Somewhere between the two versions the clarification about controlling levels crept in!

[DJM]

Personally I think it's a shame if the recommendations of the working party are not accepted in full.

I don't see any evidence that they're not!

Recommendation 1: The structure should be reduced to 3 levels of event:
National - Standard - Local
No difference here, apart from the label change of Standard to Regional

Recommendation 2: Further debate on the timing of BOC and the relationship to BRC is needed.
An ongoing issue ...

Recommendation 3: BSC, BMC & BNC should exist as National level events in the fixtures calendar.
As per draft Guideline A

Recommendation 4: The Sprint should become a formal part of JK although not included in overall scoring. The rest of the weekend should remain as it is.
Already implemented this year.

Recommendation 5: The number of National events should be reduced to 4 or 5 per annum and form Area Championships (Scottish, Northern, Midland, Southern and possibly Welsh). The increased weighting for ranking points should be reintroduced.
As per draft Guidline A

Recommendation 6: The quality of competition at Area Championships should be improved by encouraging greater participation through use of these events for UK Cup and FCC and a higher weighting in the ranking system.
As per draft Guideline A

Recommendation 7: The Masters Cup should be based on 3 x JK, 4 x British Championships and all Area Championships with scoring in line with UK Cup and FCC.
As per Focus article

Recommendation 8: All events at Standard level should have courses designated by colour. The current colour structure should be expanded slightly from 8 to 10 courses to give a greater range and choice.
I disagreed with this wording at the time as it failed to take into account multi-day events, Sprint, Middle, etc, which we'd built in to the structure at an early stage. This discrepancy is now remedied by draft Guideline A

Recommendation 9: At any Standard level event, age class competitions and awards should be permitted within the colour coded course structure.
As per draft Guideline B which shows a suggested way of mapping current age classes to equivalent colours.

Recommendation 10: A single ranking list should be produced based on all National level events and designated Standard level events. A simple system of producing ranking points from raw event data needs to be developed.
This is currently in the hands of the Rankings Working Party.

So, the recommendations are still looking pretty good. It's the "reading between the lines" bit which is yet to be resolved.

[frog]

Why do you need to be a controller to hassle planners to fill in the risk assesment? In our club that's the job of the fixtures bod who then stores the risk assessments electronically or paper in the file for the relevent event. Why do you need to be a controller for this? You just need to have a knowledge of the area to check the risks listed sound appropriate and not to mind hassling people. It sounds as though controllers will have enough to do without getting them chasing up the risk assessments. A longstanding club member should be able to do this surely?

[PKJ]

I've just looked at our (AIRE's) fixture list. Over the next 12 months there are 31 events, of which only 9 would currently need a Controller.
So, re-grading Controllers and re-defining their role in time for the year after (2009/2010) looks like a no-brainer to me.
(The role of a Grade3 Controller at a some new L3 events may be very small)

It would also be helpful if the reasoning behind the Controller requirements were explained - is this to bring orienteering into line with other sports, or, as SeanC has commented 'to keep the insurance premium down'?
Similarly for Orienteering Activities, which under the new Draft Overview, would only be organised by accredited Orienteering Coaches.

[graeme]

the point of difference between 2 & 3 is not sharp enough.

I think this is the real disappointment - we worked so hard to make it really clear in the original draft guideline: now the new "draft" is just lazily copied from the pre-Review ones.

Level 2 were at a quality you would be proud to show to an outsider (though you may not have an appropriate course for everyone), and the club should be embarrassed if things went wrong. Level 3 were ropey around the edges, and competitors shouldn't expect everything to run freely.

The blurring comes from a perception that local beginners events should be of the lowest quality (C5 / L3). This was one of the main things we wanted to address, as it is clear that high quality beginners events are successful in promoting the sport.

[RichT]

The point that Level 2 and Level 3 events should be determined by quality considerations was well but across at National Fixtures on Saturday, and I'm sure the distinction will be passed down the line in due course. This implies that going forward there will not be a simplistic mapping of current C4s to either Level 2 or Level 3.

Similarly, the idea that Level 1,2 & 3 events should match Level 1,2 & 3 Controllers seems sensible in terms of nomenclature within the new structure, but will require some redefinition of the Controller levels. There just aren't enough of each type the way they are currently defined to match how events will be graded going forward.

Much patience will be needed whilst all of these changes work their way through the different working groups.

Keep

[madmike]

Why do you need to be a controller to hassle planners to fill in the risk assesment? In our club that's the job of the fixtures bod who then stores the risk assessments electronically or paper in the file for the relevent event. Why do you need to be a controller for this? You just need to have a knowledge of the area to check the risks listed sound appropriate and not to mind hassling people. It sounds as though controllers will have enough to do without getting them chasing up the risk assessments. A longstanding club member should be able to do this surely?

Why?
In my view the 2 key things a controller must focus on are:

1. safety of everyone
2. fairness of courses

ignoring point 2 for this thread else we could leap down a (different) rabbit hole - I know this is a rabbithole given the title of this thread!

Whether we like it or not, personally I don't, having a risk assessment is now perceived to equate to the safety bit - especially if some oportunist persuades an ambulance chasing lawyer to sue us - that's way a controller should be looking at the risk assessment.

Personally I would always want to walk the ground with the paper in my sticky mit as well, else it's really worthless unless you have intimate and recent experience of the area.

Short answer is that i agree that you are right that it's not the controllers job to hassle the planner but unfortunately it is increasingly necessary in today's society which believes paper = safer and level 3 controller = more qualified to make risk assessment validity judgement than anyone else using common sense

[SeanC]

When it comes to local events I think that, unless there is a very good reason, it should be left to the clubs judgement to how much quality to apply. Controlling truly local events will raise quality of course, a good thing, but it could come at a cost of quantity. We know that we can increase participation by providing more events, and by providing a better quality event. When things are going well a club can do both, but what about the case of a club going through a bad patch and struggling to maintain it's series of 10 local events? More quality (of events) could mean the quantity going below the level that will sustain participation.

Similarly when a new league is set up there can be some rough edges. When the Kent Night Cup first started I "organised" one of the early events. I was a bit short for time but volunteered anyway. I didn't have time to visit the control sites before the event. On the evening of the event I found I couldn't reach 2 controls because of various barbed wire fences. The controls were put out late and faster competitors overtook helpers putting out controls (we couldn't delay the start any longer as everyone wanted to get to the pub......). Looking back it was more important to help get the series up and running, and the nature of the series such that such rough edges are less important (eg problems can be announced at the mass start). Quantity was more important than quality.

At the local event level, the quantity v quality balance to me seems essentially a development issue. Here guidance and support from BOF (maybe through RDO's?) seems more appropriate than regulation as every case may be different.