Yvette Baker format/rules

[geomorph]

Elsewhere DJM asks that we stand up and be counted and help to revise the rules (which seems to be the concensus that they need revision)

I'd rather we move to a running up culture. If this means we have to invent the long yellow and use red (as long orange) to provide older novices with appropriate physical/technical combinations then go for it.

One further problem with running down approach is that if you are non-gold MW10/12 what do you run down to?

AWK is right that generally experienced youngsters can beat the novice but older competitor, but if this is truly about development then it is the less skilled experienced youngsters that get put out by the older novices, and that is no more valid than asking the older novice to run at a skill level above their experience. And we need to develop and retain these less skilled youngsters just as much as the skilled ones, if only because age and development level are not linear, and some lesser skilled may leapfrog in a few years those who excel early - but if they are put off because they had to compete against the big kids....

[seabird]

Our team came 10th (i.e. last) but there was no sense of demotivation on the journey home. Everyone enjoyed themselves and nobody complained about any supposed inequities in the system.

However a brief glance at the results gives these facts

Yellow Course
there were 6 runners M/W14+ out of a total of 59.
Of the M14s 3 were in the top 10
The only W14 won.

Orange Course
There were 14 runners M/W16+ out of a total of 55
Of the M16/18s 3 were in the top 12
The older girls filled 4th, 7th, 8th 11th,12, and 17th places out of 19.

Light Green
There were 3 runners,all M18s out of 35.
These came 1st, 10th and 11th out of 21

Green
There were 7 M/W20 runners out of 39
The M20s came 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 17th out of 24
The W20s came 1st and 5th out of 15

From this I think it is safe to deduce that the young people running down have a significant advantage.

I think it raises a very real question about what to do with the M/W20s. It is clearly unfair pitting them against the M/W16s.

Do we introduce a Blue Course for them?
Are their numbers sufficient to justify this? And would they score even more disproportionately well?
I am very conscious that the time my club, Aire, won 5 years ago we had a particularly strong set of M/W20s competing.
Looking at the M/W20s I find myself struck by the question of what are these adults (physiologically speaking) doing running in a junior competition.

[DJM]

geomorph wrote

Elsewhere DJM asks that we stand up and be counted and help to revise the rules

I think you mean DM and not DJM ... we are not the same person

[Vidalos]

Firstly the YBT final was a great experience for all who were there either competing or supporting. It was fantastic to see all the juniors supporting each other and cheering on team mates and other competitors as they finished. For an event like this it is always very good to have starts and finishes close to car parking and an 'arena' for the finish , so well done NOR for achieving this.

It is always going to be difficult to provide 'fair' competition and may be the new events structure will allow a different approach to recognising the ability of individuals. The current use of 'gold' standard as the base for this is as much about whether juniors have attended Regional events as it is about a standard they are capable of, as not all juniors travel outside their region. Using colour code standards would probably provide a more appropriate guage of level and ability . I'm not sure how 'standards' are going achieved in the new structure

It seems that it's the running down not one level but two i.e. the M/W18 running Orange etc, that is the greatest anomolie. And whilst the very top M/W 14 and M/W12 may be able to compete the vast majority cannot. So, would it work if juniors could not run down below colour a code standard they have achieved. So if an M/W18 had achieved 3 Light Green Standards this would be the lowest cousre they were eligible to run at the YBT ?

Also the current competition could be won by high scorers on a few courses. May be in the future clubs should have to have at least one scorer from each course , this may also support club development programmes for juniors . This would actually disadvantage my club currently but personally I think it would be a better approach

Anyway some initial thoughts

[SJC]

May be in the future clubs should have to have at least one scorer from each course

This used to be how the Compass Sport Cup worked and it meant that people had to run up in order to get the right number of counters on each course. It was generally seen as a positive step when this was no longer required.
To introduce a similar rule into the YBT would result in clubs asking juniors to run up on inappropriate courses just to make up the team. Unfortunately this is just as bad as allowing inappropriate running down.

[Mrs H]

I guess the question is - what is the YBT for? We need to decide what the competition seeks to reward ( strength in depth? junior ability? a jolly good time? Best all round junior club?) and then construct a competition which recognises the qualities we are after.

I don't think tinkering with the existing format is a good place to start. start with a blank piece of paper , decide what kind of club you want to win and design a competition that will do it.

Personally i think the existing format is too limited to show any of those things satisfactorily and too low key to provide the high point of the junior inter-club calendar. JIRCS and PPJR have far more atmosphere and I suspect one of the main reasons is that they are held over 2 days requiring an overnight stop - we're back onto the social element arn't we? I don't think it is possible to over-estimate how important this is to young people.

[Vidalos]

[This used to be how the Compass Sport Cup worked and it meant that people had to run up in order to get the right number of counters on each course. It was generally seen as a positive step when this was no longer required.
To introduce a similar rule into the YBT would result in clubs asking juniors to run up on inappropriate courses just to make up the team. Unfortunately this is just as bad as allowing inappropriate running down.

I can understand this SJC, but the team manager would then have to decide who was most competent to run up so as not to loose too many points, surely it would only be the most competent juniors who could do this or am I being naive ??? Which is better having a decision of who can run down to gain most points or who can run up so as not to loose to many ? Overall the fairer approach would seem to be the latter IMHO !

Mrs H , I agree this starts to look at the depth of juniors a club has but doesn't this then align with the development programmes for clubs anyway ??? Wouldn't this also give some focus to junior development programmes and training within clubs, perhaps even get people thinking earlier about competitions like YBT and how any 'gaps' would be filled ??

[Blanka]

In another thread, Scott said

I'd have though the obvious thing to do in the first instance would be to contact JCG - either your regional rep or the Chair, Sue Marsden. They meet in January, so now would be a good time to go about getting something on the agenda.

One thing I would suggest if you want to have a say is make sure you get a regional rep out at the JCG meeting. In January, when I was still our region's rep (for East Anglia), I was the *only* regional rep who was at the meeting solely as a regional rep (there were one or two others who have an 'official' role as well as being reps). Why do you moan on here when you (or your rep) can't actually be bothered to go to the meeting?

OK, it is a Thursday evening, but many of the committee members have to have to go to other BOF committees on Saturdays and it is just not feasible to have everything on a weekend. We were all given nice dinner at the meeting and if I hadn't been able to get a lift home, Pauline had agreed I could stay. Yes, I am a student, but a postgraduate one which means I have just as much work as a person with a job, and a number of the non-rep members of the JCG also work and still manage to make it.

At the January meeting, we did have a long discussion about YBT rules and it's always hard to please everyone, but I assure you that comments that were sent in *were* taken into account. So if you want to change things then
- make sure your rep knows the region's views
- make sure a rep from your region actually goes to the meeting (why not offer to go yourself if they are otherwise busy?)

Personally I think the older juniors could have a blue course made available to them (the 20's and the good 18's). Definitely include the 20's in the competition - they are still juniors and although it might not inspire the elite 20's, this really is the only junior club competition that the average M/W20 can take part in (they can't run in the Peter Palmer relays). I suggest leaving M/W14's on the yellow if they're not competent. My sister (and others in the club of similar age) was never really too interested in O, but got onto the yellow course at around 10 or 11. By the time she was 13 she was not quite confident to run orange, and by letting her run yellow at the YBT, we were able to get her out for the club without alienating her by making her run a course she was not prepared for. And I think that's really in the spirit of the competition, be inclusive!! (Same applies to the beginner 18s and 20s at University).

[HOCOLITE]

To add a social element why not have interclub bowling challenge, we went bowling on Saturday evening and it was great for club spirit. Obviously not everyone could take part but then not everyone plays footie at the PPs. Most towns of a reasonable size have bowling and it is clearly unisex. Maybe a fun relay which mixes club members like they hold at the world schools as a pre event warm up!

[awk]

From this I think it is safe to deduce that the young people running down have a significant advantage.

Very UNsafe! Let's take a look at one or two of those facts, but with some slightly different viewpoints.

Yellow boys
2/5 or 40% of the top 9 boys were M14, whilst 4/10 M12s were in the top 9, also 40%. One girl on her own isn't enough to judge advantage or not.

Orange girls
3/6 or 50% W16/18s were in the top half; 5/7 or 72% W12s were in the top half.
If that's being generous, how about 1/6 (17%) of W16/18s were in the top 6, compared with 3/7 (42%) of W12s? Maybe we ought not to allow the W12s to run as being unfair on the others!!

Orange boys
Yes, 3/7 (43%) of M16/18s finished in the top 12. But 8/19 (42%) of M12s did the same. Significant advantage?

Light Green
Well, yes, all 3 in the top half of boys, but the fact that all bar one were beaten by half the W14s on the course suggests to me that they weren't at a significant advantage.

I'm not for one second suggesting that these are definitive measures (anything but!), simply that we have to be careful how we look at the figures.

I do agree about the issue of M/W20s, and I suspect that a Blue course will be the answer, not just for solving the M/W20 issue.

Yes, some rejigging is needed (I've been saying that for years), not least to reflect the realities of the increasing irrelevance of the badge scheme as a measure of ability (I reiterate, it was meant to only be a temporary measure), but the principle of pitching comparable abilities together, rather than basing competition simply on age classes, is to my mind an important one that shouldn't be thrown out with any of the old bathwater.

Looking at the M/W20s I find myself struck by the question of what are these adults (physiologically speaking) doing running in a junior competition.

Because they are still 'juniors' by BOF definition, and because we need to involve M/W20s in club competition to aid retention. Whether this is the right way, I don't know, but those were the main reasons.

BTW Vidalos, I'm afraid I disagree strongly with your suggestion of requiring scorers on each course. Clubs develop in different ways, and the YBT was designed to allow for that. The fact that the CSC actually moved to copy the YBT model indicates that this is something that we got right. On the other hand, I think your suggestion about colour standard cutoffs or something similar is probably the direction we need to take on eligibility.