4 Levels

[Red Adder]

I see there is a proposal coming up at the BO AGM to return to 4 levels of competition.
Personally I think this is a good move.

Lets hope the events at L2 are properly limited - with the quality of the terrain being a key feature - and not having every club having its money spinning "regional" on
very modest areas. If this means that clubs need genuine district events priced at £6 - £7 in future to survive, well so be it. But that is still preferable to having several £4 - £5 events and one £ 10 + on an area that does not merit it.

[awk]

I don't. All it will do is go back to a system of ringfencing and restricting when events can happen, with all the problems that the old system had, and with regional competition quality being defined at national rather than regional level. Yet more centralisation is the last thing I want to see.

It needs regional associations to take a grip on the competitions at their level and do something to create that quality difference. It's happened in Scotland, it's likely to happen elsewhere in the not too distant future, so to start going backwards just now at such short notice would be really bad news.

- and given the issues raised in the thread on Area Championships, BO have enough to deal with, without taking on quality control at level 2 (very big mistake calling them regional events) That should be the associations' jobs.

[andypat]

Whatever the system there needs to be room in it for urban and sprint type events. These are becoming much more popular and will help to get more people involved in the sport if they can be properly integrated into the mainstream of O.

[Clive Coles]

I would welcome the return to 4 levels and the recognition that quality of the terrain is just as important for the delivery of a memorable event as the quality of the facilities.

The BO Events committee has now created a climate where pressure is being put on clubs to convert their old district event colour coded fixture programmes to Regional event status. They have watered down some of the requirements so that we can do this, they have ducked the issue regarding the use of quality terrain.

So, as Red Adder warns , we are finding a number of regional events being scheduled on areas where the quality orienteering experience is unlikely to be achieved.

Certain areas of the country are flushed with access to technical T5 terrain ~ lucky Scotland; poor old East Anglia !

This doesn't mean some Regions cannot stage some good quality Championship and Regional events but in some parts of the country options are more limited. We mustn't therefore get ourselves into the frame of mind that each region should stage a set number of regional events each year. This seems to be where we are heading by advocating that regional league fixtures should be converted to level 2 status.

I think we should and must continue to resist pressures to stage regional events on areas that are marginal. If we fail in this regard the regional event will become devalued.

The current 3 level structure does not however provide us with a clear way to differentiate our truly local club events and our regular Sunday morning colour coded fixtures. About 90% of all events staged in our neck of the woods are currently lumbered together as level 3 local events. This is daft and uninformative.

Let's accept there are regional differences ~ a 4 level structure provides all of us with the flexibility to enable Clubs ( and Regional Associations) to put on an appropriate programme of events that suit their needs and the technical nature of their areas.

No AWK..... I am not advocating centralised control by BOF. Quite the opposite. I am advocating a solution that would get BOF off our backs and allow clubs and regional associations to keep their Regional events that little bit special. The best events in our orienteering season.

We were a Federation ~ BOF now seem to be trying to dictate how everything should be organised. The 3 level model does not suit everyone.

I hope the AGM attendees support this proposal.

[RJ]

......All it will do is go back to a system of ringfencing and restricting when events can happen, with all the problems that the old system had, and with regional competition quality being defined at national rather than regional level. Yet more centralisation is the last thing I want to see......

I am very disappointed with your posting, awk, it is very much a complete nonsequitor to the debate. And as for 'the old system'...... it isn't the old system, it is the previous system that was discarded by a small group of people in an illegitimate fashion. There has been no consultation on the merits of the changes, and no public 'vote' amongst the orienteering fraternity.

The painfully obvious 'thing' that was wrong with the previous model was that the regional events were often overpriced 'crap' events on rubbish areas. If we had depopulated that level (level 2) and only allowed quality events, as regulated by the region(!), and there we agree, then the extra expense of the events might have been tolerated.

We seriously disagree over this one issue! We do agree on others though!!

[SeanC]

I read the proposal in Compass Sport with mixed feelings. On one hand you have to respect people who care about their sport and want to change it for the good (as they perceive it),..... On the other hand the thought of another year dominated by changes to an abstract event structure after most of us have got used to the new one.... The time and money BOF staff will need which could be spent on something more profitable (like the membership system or publicity), and all those committees that could work on something else and come up with some proposals that would geninely re-juvinate the sport.....

Sorry, but I hope the resolution is defeated.

[seabird]

with the quality of the terrain being a key feature - and not having every club having its money spinning "regional" on
very modest areas.

Why does it have to be money spinning? Our committee have recently decided that one of our major events with a full range of courses to be held on a recent JK Individual area with no access charges and no new map expenses should be a £6.50 (minus BOF discount)/£2.00 Junior entry.

I can understand higher prices if there are land access charges, a new PG plot or a professional map to pay for, but otherwise many L2 events are charging more than necessary, whether or not the area is modest/c**p.

[distracted]

So, as Red Adder warns , we are finding a number of regional events being scheduled on areas where the quality orienteering experience is unlikely to be achieved.

But that was a problem under the previous system too! Changing to 4 levels isn't going to stop clubs trying to put on 'regional' events on in crap terrain. Who is there to veto it?

For those calling for this 4 level system - tell us - what makes the 'regional' event special? How is it different from a 'district' event in terms of experience and quality?

I'd also be interested in your answers to "What does event level actually tell you about an event?"

The guidelines simply say:

These are administrative levels that indicate the scope of the event and the
complexity of organisational requirements. This is independent of the type of event.

National Events are the most prestigious events in the Great Britain orienteering
calendar and support a programme of Major Competitions.

Regional Events will provide an intermediate level of event for orienteers of all
abilities from around the Region of the organising club, but generally without the
prestige of the National Events.

Local Events will encompass the wide range of events that Clubs in the UK wish to
put on with the key objective of providing opportunities for participation for
newcomers of all ages as well as for orienteers local to the event.

As I (and others) have said far far too many times on here - level of EVENT does not correspond to level of COMPETITION. Competitions lie on top of the events structure, they do not control the events structure. As awk states, this gives much more scope in terms of types of format and competition that can be run at events, rather than the four-level system often proposed on here that is defining the type of competition that each event level provides.

However, I am inclined to agree that we are in need of a set of high-quality regional COMPETITIONS. But this comes down to advertising/marketing - something orienteers are notoriously bad at - not someone defining a level of EVENT. You can't define event levels solely by a highly subjective 'quality' marker, and you can't expect people to turn up because "it's a 'Level X' event, surely everyone will compete."

So if you want a series of high quality regional events, get together within your association/region and create that competition and define what you expect of these events. After all, regional associations are effectively in charge of the 'regional events' in their region - if you want such a system, why not set it up within the new structure? There's no-one from 'up-on-high' at BOF central from stopping you... yes, no-one.

As an example (suggested in another thread), you could create the "Southern Regional League." Events on Penhale, Leith Hill, Burnham Beeches, Star Posts, Ash Ranges, and an area in each of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean - for the south, a quality set of areas suitable to base a quality competition on. Now you need to promote it as such. If it does what it says on the tin, people will see the brand and know what to expect. That sort of setup is far more likely to promote the "quality events" that you so desire, rather than (in this case) leaving it to all 25-odd clubs in the south to put on their own (supposedly quality but often really quite middling) 'regional' events on highly variable areas, with variable maps and variable planning...

However, there will still be events around which don't fit into such a 'quality regional event' system - events that will attract a wide audience (sometimes wider than the current/former 'regional events' you so want to keep!) or be used for another league - sprint events, middle distance events, urban events, even district-type events for an association league etc. These are often no different from your previous 'regional events' in terms of what they offer to the participant or the numbers who turn up - in some cases/parts of the country they'll be better - better map, better area, better atmosphere, better format, more people = better competition! And remember that what you see in your area doesn't necessarily correspond to the entirety of the country...


So before you all go rushing off thinking 'we need a 4 level event structure' why not also consider why there's an ongoing review of competitions - linked from the front page of the British Orienteering website for those who have not had their say. From the arguments being made in this thread, I think we can say that the current set of competitions clearly does not meet the need of the experienced orienteer. Neither, in my mind, did those in the previous system - which some of you are effectively advocating a return to. If you feel something is missing, go and have your say.

But the national federation has that unenviable and seemingly impossible task of trying to please everyone whilst encouraging participation and making the sport attractive to newcomers. It's often been said that it's the clubs that drive innovation within the sport - so instead of sitting there complaining, why not approach your clubs/associations and put your ideas for competitions across to them as well - you never know, something good might happen...

[NeilC]

I would like to back up Distracted's request for advocates of the 4-tier system to provide some workable criteria that can define the differences between levels 2 and 3. Something like good planning sounds great but almost impossible to define - especially at the point when events are registered. Good terrain another but as we saw at the CompassSport Cup final good planning and good competition can overcome poorish terrain quality. I believe that the proposal is not reverting to an age class structure for the 2nd level.

[Neil M40]

Well said Distracted.

The only things you could depend on to distinguish an old regional from an old district event were that you would have strict age groups (and therefore only a handful of direct competitors in M40) and it would cost a lot more. No amount of regulation could ensure better terrain, better maps or better planning.

The new system recognizes this problem and shifts it onto the clubs - all the "proper" orienteering events (what would have been the old district and regional) should be in the middle tier where it is up to the clubs to decide what they think their event is worth, and whether it warrants any overlaying competition (including age-group competition) on top of the basic event structure. The introduction of this has been botched - the original proposal of "standard" event was a far more appropriate name than regional, and the controller and embargo rules made it virtually impossible for the system to work as originally envisaged.

I hope we can move forward by refining the new structure rather than going back to the old one.

[RJ]

My thoughts on the four tier system.....

Orienteering has a natural four levels of competition for any person wishing to take up the sport.

Starting at club level (level 4) where they learn the rudiments of the sport.
Most of the competition is then at level 3, the District, where travel is relatively short and local Galoppens measure that competition. This is where the sport will grow, with new people looking for a relatively inexpensive, and fairly informal structure. They aren't local events.... they are a loose knit collection of clubs that provide competition with minimal travel.

The next levels involve a relatively small section of the orienteering fraternity in high quality, and particularly, age based competition. A lot of the Regional events (level 2) still only draw their competitors from a 100 mile radius. They are not a true national event.

And then there are the level 1 events that are genuinely national, in that they attract people from all over the country.

So..... no compromise on a four tier structure. The whole 'event review' could have been better dealt with by sorting the level 2 events, and making them special, and having a vetting process so that only the better areas could be used. If we can't find good events to populate this level then it remains empty! Upping the ante on District events, and often inviting the clubs to increase the entry fees is counter productive. I am completely at odds with clubs who charge £12 for a regional event, that is little altered from a District colour coded event at £5.

Yes distracted, by all means define your various competitions and let them sit on your event structure. I have absolutely no problem with that. My contention is that the regional level 2 events should be managed by a regional group and have their quality vetted. Then 'regions' will get the branding and the advertsing right, and 'live or die' on the quality that they assure!

[Gross]

Do BOF not now have a couple of Event Managers??? Surely part of their task will be to ensure that the quality offered by our 'national' events etc are up to the standards set by those who set standards... as long as those standards set are the standards that are required

[awk]

As you said RJ, whilst we agree on many things, on this we totally disagree!

I think distracted, NeilC and NeilM40 have got it absolutely right, and where I think you have got it wrong is by describing the system as levels of competition. They are not - they are events/races, upon which competitions can be based.

Where Clive Coles has gone wrong, in my opinion, is to equate the 'new' regional event with the 'old' one. They are not the same - which is why I think it was a bad move of BOF (ignoring specialist group advice once more) to name them as such. Equally, it was a bad move by BOF to try and use the old system's criteria and processes for regional events (eg embargoes, G2 controllers etc) with the new one - it demonstrated a complete failure to implement some of the key aspects of what the event review group were trying to achieve.

On Thursday night, YHOA agreed to establish a Yorkshire Super League (open to all full BOF members). The idea behind this is to take on board some of the lessons we can learn from the SOA, and establish a series of events at Level 2 in YHOA that provides that higher level of competition in the YHOA geographical area for those who want/need it. Neither the competition nor the events need another tier created by BO as it is all designed to be organised within the new structure. Criteria for these events are to be finalised, but I'm sure this is the sort of initiative that is needed, and not something directed centrally.

It will (not incidentally!) involve an age based competition built on the colour event structure, but that age structure will be tailored to the needs of events and competition n YHOA, not to a generic standard that might be appropriate to other associations but doesn't sufficiently answer competitive needs in YHOA.

[Clive Coles]

My support of a 4 level structure stems not from a disagreement about the role of a regional event but rather the fact that the bulk of our orienteering fixture programme has been thrown into the same pot ~ level 3.

It is asked ~ what is different between a level 2 & level 3 event ? Let's deal with that first.

1) Level 2 is ranked for starters. I was relieved as I feared for sometime all colour coded events might be included irrespective of the quality of the field. Ranking . IMO, is a prime reason for there to be a difference.

2) Level 2 competitions should be held on areas where sufficient options exist to provide the technical navigation challenge required by the competition. This needs to acknowledge that sprint, urban, midddle distance and relay events have different technical challenges. It should not however be easier to accrue ranking points at soft venues.

3) Level 2 area should not be overused and over familiar. By advocating more regional events we are putting pressure on clubs ignore the need to rest areas from competitions.

4) Level 2 should be controlled by grade 2 accredited controllers. I hope the current relaxation to allow grade 3 officials is a temporary expedient. We all have to learn our craft ~ expertise is acquired by experience. We therefore need more grade 2 officials if we are to increase the number of regional events ~ this will take time . Once we get them they must be utilised.

5) I believe Level 2 events should have pre-entry as the norm as well as entry on the day. Level 3 would be entry on the day.

6) I liked the level 2 guidelines when they were first conceived. The implementation group watered them down with their FAQ answers. Too many

you don't have to do this

relaxations. This can compromise standards and allows clubs to tick sufficient boxes to enable them to stage regional events on borderline areas with more limited facilities.

I am not therefore against the staging of quality regional events ~ i just want them to be that bit different from the standard Sunday morning colour coded event.

In East Anglia we are not requiring clubs to put on more regional events. Our East Anglian league. which evolved from our old EA gallopen, accumulates scores from nominated fixtures most of which are level 3 events. I resent the inference from the BOF Events committee that regional leagues should be staged at level 2 fixtures.

Where clubs develop areas which can support more regional quality events we will stage more level 2 fixtures. We should not be compromising standards just to play the numbers game. We should also not compromise standards so as to raise more revenue. That will kill participation rather than increase attendances.

By splitting level 3 we reintroduce the ability to highlight what is being provided. Level 3 now encompasses a complete variety of formats. A Wednesday evening event: just 2 courses, control cards for a Flat £2 entry fee ranging to a full colour coded event formally controlled by a grade 3 controller. We should have the ability to segregate the chalk from the cheese.

I would like to see these small events moved into a new level 4. The BOF Board ruling that level 3 events should attract a BO member discount is being totally disregarded by most clubs for such small events. Hardly surprising ~ this was always going to happen. BOF made a fool of themselves by expecting compliance to this directive.

Level 4 would have different guidelines that level 3 in regard to planning , controlling, BOF member discounts, expectations of what to provide at assembly and finish.

BOF have a role to provide guidance to clubs at all levels. At the highest level this guidance should be in the form of rules.

At local level however they need to accept there are regional differences. We need flexible guidelines for level 3 events ~ not rules. We should leave the clubs and associations to run their fixtures and competitions to suit their respective memberships.

[awk]

Clive, we have a totally different vision of what L2 events are. You still seem to see them along the lines of the old regional events, I don't, nor did the event review group.

I think the crunch of your post comes at the end:

We should leave the clubs and associations to run their fixtures and competitions to suit their respective memberships.

Exactly! So why are you insisting that BOF legislate and maintain control at regional level?! Level 1 is where BOF should set its standards/rules, Level 2 is where regions set theirs, and Level 3 is for the clubs.

More specifically:
1) Yes L2s can be used for ranking, but unlike you I see no problems in using old district events for that. With a unified ranking list, there is no problem with a weak field, because it's not just how you do against the competition that matters, but how that competition has previously performed.

2) There's no such thing as a soft touch area, because it's not the area that defines how you do on the ranking list, but how you do against the competition.

3) I don't think full-blooded C4s were ever held on over-familiar areas. Smaller ones might have been, but they would go into Level 3 anyway.

4) Why? If the region wants to use Grade 2 controllers for certain events, fine, but leave that to the regions.

5) Why should that be the norm? Leave that to the club. Pre-entries having nothing to do with the quality of event or competition.

6) Only because you are seeing L2 events as the equivalent of the old regionals, as with (4) and (5). They were not meant to be. However, the idea behind the L2 events was simply to provide an overall framework within which associations could work whatever was appropriate to them. If you want to create a series of higher quality events with a specific brand name, then do, but that's something more appropriate to you as a region, not to be decided nationally.

EAOA are, of course, free to hold their regional league at whatever events they want, but it does surprise me that you seem to be saying that a regional event should be organised to a higher standard than the regional league.

There is no compromise on standards. It's simply that the L2 event is defined by how the event is structured. The quality is up to the club and the association - so, for instance, the SOA put their own quality mark on the SOL events. If EA want to put their name to a series of L3 events, then that's fine, but that's not BOF's problem! You have all the tools to segregate chalk from cheese, it's up to you how you use them.

I agree about BOF looking foolish at expecting L3 events to attract member discounts - a silly mistake, and one that resulted from the botched introduction and messing around at committee level.

BOF have a role to provide guidance to clubs at all levels. At the highest level this guidance should be in the form of rules.

Yes - but you're now contradicting everything you argued previously, where you are arguing for more rules at level 2. I agree with this statement: rules at Level 1, and guidance at Level 2 and below!

At local level however they need to accept there are regional differences.

At local level there are not regional differences! The regional differences come in at regional level. At local level the differences are at club level!

but rather the fact that the bulk of our orienteering fixture programme has been thrown into the same pot ~ level 3.

Well why not? Most of our events are locally focused, so will be. Any sensible structure will tend to have a wider base than higher up. My worry would be if you did have a fat bulge in the middle.