4 Levels

[distracted]

But as long as anyone who runs at the earlier event is clearly warned in advance that they will have to declare themselves non-comp for the later one, and the events are more than (say) three months apart, does it matter if they do? (Genuine question - I'd be interested to hear arguments for both sides.)

I think it depends on the importance of the future competition that could warrant an 'embargo' on the area.

At the National-level events - our most important competitions - then there shouldn't be any events on the part of the area to be used for the main competition. On a large area like Culbin, there's still scope to run local events on other parts of the map - don't have a problem with that. However, even if you aren't going to be right up the top of the results, there's still the aspect (for most) of how you compare to the best, and to your friends/rivals, on the best terrain. I doubt that there are many people who would want to run at such an event non-comp and ruin the challenge that is being presented.

Below that - if the area is available to use and people will turn up - why not? If someone is taking the future competition seriously, then they'll make their own choice as to whether to run. You shouldn't need to bolt on the non-comp warning - simply stating that the area is going to be used for XYZ competition in a few months should make that obvious...

But at this lower level, when does someone need to declare themselves non-comp?

Apparently (I haven't checked...) there is actually no mention of the word 'embargo' in any of the British Orienteering Rules. It simply states a procedure for someone to remain competitive - however this is often interpreted as an 'embargo' - hence the many complaints and the current removal of the 12-month rule at Level 2 events. But harking back to Scott's earlier comment - here, why is it important? At the majority of these events, what is there to gain apart from a few extra ranking points...

Refreshingly, I know of at least one association who, with the rule relaxation, have decided against 'embargoes' at Level 2 unless there's an important bolt-on competition. The ability for a region/association to define the status, rather than having it dictated by BOF central, is how I think it should work on a permanent basis at this level. For one it gives more flexibility - more opportunity for people to take part in the sport.

That quite nicely illustrates the point that there is a trade-off here: in trying to keep everyone happy, we want to provide opportunity to orienteer, but also to maintain the quality and status of a sufficient number of high-level competitions to satisfy the experienced/competitive orienteer. I'm sure everyone will have a different take on where this 'boundary' falls...

[pete.owens]

Level 2 - Regional events. To include a prescribed selection of colour coded courses (as per the BOF table in Event Guideline B) that can be matched to age classes.
...
It is the variety of courses on offer that would differentiate these events from level 3.
Level 3 - District events. Colour coded events to include a minimum of yellow, orange, light green, green, blue and brown

But other than the absense of a TD1 couse (which I would have thought was a must at both levels) the variety of courses you listed is pretty much the same. The normal course for my age group is short brown, but is it really so restrictive to have to run a course a little bit longer or shorter that it makes the event distinctive.

Also this classification assumes a particular type of competition. There is no room for middle, sprint, score, night, relay, urban or trail events - all of which can offer competitions at the highest level without the need for the full set of 13 courses.

This was a major failing of the old structure, the main feature of C3 events was a map big enough to hold the full set of long courses ofen on indifferent terraine with some classes comprising a handful of competitors. Events that didn't fit this rigid format were consigned to the obscurity of C5 and didn't make it onto national fixture lists.

[Sunlit Forres]

Pete - you must be either nocturnal or on a quiet night shift like me...

I take your point. I run short brown too, and I really can't get excited whether I run a few hundred metres more or less. I'd far prefer a larger number of people to run against (of whatever age class) and have fewer courses than have a handful on a large number of courses. I might start to think different in 15 or 20 years time though! But that's starting to stray onto a topic that I think was covered on another thread ages ago.

By the way, I meant what I said about suggesting no requirement for a TD1 on level 3 events. Sometimes an area just won't allow a TD1 and I don't think that should stop a colour coded event (to use some ancient terminology) being held there if the area's suitable for all the other courses.

Don't know what the answer is for urban, sprint, night etc. Lack of a grading system doesn't seem to have stopped the explosion in popularity of urban O, so maybe we don't need one.

[awk]

Sunlit Forres
You argue for 4 levels - in summary:

L1 - controlled by NGB
L2 - controlled by region
L3 - controlled by region
L4 - controlled by club

In other words, 3 levels of administration, with BOF dictating how the regional levels are split. So why not, rather than BOF deciding how your region's events are split, leave the regions to decide precisely what happens in their patch? That means in the national framework, put L2 and L3 together, and leave the associations to decide how to divide, just as Scotland has done (SOL and non-SOL). Thus, whilst there is a national 3-tie structure, you in Scotland have 4 tiers in practice. I'm mystified why you would want BOF to decide what standards SOLs should be run at, surely that's a Scottish issue?

That's the point I'm trying to make, and why I'm arguing so strongly against 4 tiers. It's not because I see the number of tiers as important, but what it represents IS important: moving control to a system that is better tailored to local needs.

So, nationally we have 3 tiers of events: national, association and club. Within those tiers we have, if you like, different levels developed locally. Thus at L2 in Scotland you have 2 tiers: SOL and the rest. That is what will happen in Yorkshire. But those tiers are agreed and decided at the appropriate local level (region in this case), not by a central national committee. We don't need or want BOF to tell us what standards to set at our events beyond the framework structure needed at national level.

That is the critical point. I'm not arguing against 4 levels in practice, I'm arguing against the national centralisation of quality assurance and competition for local and regional events. Leave us to get on with what is best in our patch, and focus at national level on the quality of L1 and national competitions.

[Clive Coles]

I find reading many of these posts there is a lot of common ground regarding what we all are trying to achieve. It's a shame that the mention of 4 tiers polarises the arguments and generates accusations of one camp being against change and the other being the custodians of the new vision.

Dispite the suggestion that some regional officials wish to exercise a veto over when and where a regional event might be staged I can assure this thread that I find this far from the way I view the true situation.

Whilst in post in East Anglia I never once veto'd anything. My frustration was that clubs were constrained by a number of factors which inhibited them from staging more regional events.

We in East Anglia are very reliant on Forestry Commission land ~ much of our area is farmed which gives rise to small pockets of woodland which can be linked together with path runs. There are also a small number of private estates where we struggle to plann anything longer than a brown course.

Ground nesting bird conservationist arguments have effectively limited access to FC land to just 4 months of the year ( November ~ end February).

There should be no surprise therefore to find that most regular regional events in East Anglia are held in Thetford Forest in January and February ~ we have, for example, 4 regional events coming up in Thetford (and the Kings Forest) over the next 4 weeks.

But for the rest of the year we find the old District event format to be the more suitable style of event for the areas to which we have access. This is a club based decision ~ it is not imposed by a higher authority. long may that continue.

Looking at other Association fixture lists I find, after some digging on the BOF fixture lists, that they too are sustaining the bulk of their fixtures with "L3" colour coded fixtures.

The old sytle District Event has formed the backbone of a regional programme. It cannot be airbrushed out of our minds by claims that " you don't understand" or "BOF have made a mess of implementing our proposals".

The proposal for 4 tiers stems from the frustration from the club based grass roots that 90% of their fixtures are now classified as "local". Local of cause is another misnoma ~ attending our old District events in East Anglia often requires a round trip of 100 miles !

I are not advocation doing away with the many good things that have come out of the Event review. I particularly welcomed the adoption of Colour coded course descriptions at L2.

I just wish that the system of Event classification is adjusted to reflect what clubs are actually prepared to put on. IMO L3 should to be split into 2 ~ If i suggest how these might be named it will probable stir up another hornets nest !

[SeanC]

But Clive, in East Anglia there are more levels, you have the East Anglia league, and the SWELL league (are they the same?) which use former district events. Then you have the truely local events.If you capture district events into a good local competition you have your level, and the region is free to define what you need locally (eg you have a lot of juniors from what I remember, so whatever is needed for them...). The league concept is more applealing to newcomers, and more marketable than "district".

[Red Adder]

I don't agree with the line that "we have 3 levels of governance therefore 3 levels of event are required". The bulk of events are club based (forced in to new L3) but there are two very different types of events offered by clubs.

(1) The colour coded with seberal courses, a premarked, bagged maps (in many cases [in my clubs case currently all] revised within the previous 6 months), electronic punching, official controller etc. The effort required to put on such an event also makes it absolutely essential that there is some form of regional control to avoid fixture clashes.

(2) The informal event - a couple of courses, possibly old map, pin punches / paper cups / no controller etc.

These are fundamentally different levels of events and to someone coming from without the area, and more particularly newcomers they need to be separately defined. To call them all L3 is not a good solution. I don't care what you call them L3 /L4, L3A / L3B Tweedledum / Tweedledee - as long as there is an obvious differential when advertised on BOF and Regional sites.

Lets be honest here, the current implementation has not be at all good and has never ever really been put before the BOF membership. The porposed motion at least gives the members a chance to decide, and hopefully put this matter to bed.

[greywolf]

same old same old, really

as i understand it, the event review group made a simple recommendation based on the (widely held) recognition that the traditional distinction between "regional" and "district" was being gradually but persistently eroded by (welcome) technological advances, and additionally there were an increasing number of new format events that couldn't be fitted into this regional/district structure, and that therefore it made sense to simplfy the structure and put all serious competitive non-championship events together - So you would have
L1 Championships - National, JK, Area
L2 Standard, serious, competitive events, of whatever format, but run under normal competition rules & conditions and with reasonably standardised courses
L3 All other fun, local, limited scale events: CATIs, summer series, etc, run under whatever rules, conditions, courses the organising club wanted

This apparently sensible model got screwed up in the implementation, because those in charge insisted on driving a wedge right through the middle of the "Standard" category based on (IMHO) fairly trivial matters such as Controller grade.
So lots of old-style district events which didn't meet these criteria got slung into L3...and you end up with the slightly ludicrous situation where certain L3 events are better quality - terrain, class of field, proper length courses than not only many L2 but also some L1 events

So it seems to me that very few are satisfied with the status quo...some (inc me) want the 3 level structure that the review group proposed to be implemented properly, others, for reasons that i still have trouble fathoming fully, want to cling onto the traditional regional vs district distinction, giving a 4 level structure...

Some of the arguments put forward for maintaining the regional/district divide are distinctly region-specific - I think we can all agree that availability of TD5 terrain and average travel distance to events varies greatly between regions, so trying to define a national structure on those grounds is bound to be futile

So why is it that some people are so set on maintaining this distinction?
Is it because some clubs need to make extra money by calling an event "regional"?
Is it because having a grade 2 controller makes so much difference to the quality of the terrain and planning?
Is it because it's always been like this since they started orienteering back in the dark ages?

And assuming that you could actually draw up a distinction based on something that actually meaningfully impacted on the quality of the event, who exactly would police and enforce these standards? (and be responsible for busting non-compliance?)

As i've noted in another thread, from 2011 there are new rules for Area Champs which include technical guidance and mandatory requirements, and yet it appears from the fixtures list that the tech guidance will be ignored and the mandatory rules broken almost immediately....so if the standards for L1 events can't be fully enforced and policed, then what possible sense is there in trying to set up more unforceable distinctions to police an increasingly vague regional / district border?

[awk]

Can only agree greywolf.

Why, Red Adder and Clive, are you running your 'district' events at L3? District events are/were, at least in our patch, regional in nature (they are co-ordinated by the region after all), and we have put pretty much all our old C4 events in at L2, using brand names etc. to differentiate those we want to promote at a higher level. (This ties in with the current guidelines).

Yes Clive, I agree that the district event was/is the backbone - it should remain so. L2 was designed to be that backbone, with the old style 'regionals' differentiated within that band (not the other way round). Whilst guidance etc was wrong to start with (and there is still material on the website that is plain wrong, e.g. in the news section), if you read the guidelines on the structure of events now, it makes a lot more sense.

So, nowhere near 90% of our events are at L3 - we use that for our local summer evening races, Saturday O-Lites (Orienteering Local Informal and Training Events), club championship etc etc. L2 is used for our formal races with a catchment beyond just the club. Our bigger old-style regional events carry the brand name Dales Trophy, or will be part of the Yorkshire League. Red Adder - your (1) events should be L2, and your (2) events should be L3.

Check out the new guidelines; they perhaps need to be broadcast more loudly!

[NeilC]

At the end of the newly published Event Guideline A
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/events_guideline_a.pdf
There is a table listing the various criteria that can be used to define the three levels. Which of these do people find the most abhorrent?

[greywolf]

Neil - the guidelines are more-or-less fine and take us back pretty much to the 3 level model i outlined above which is how ERG wanted the structure to be.
Crucially now the guidance on controllers and embargos has been relaxed somewhat:
4.6 Level 2 Events should have a Grade 2 Controller, external to the host club,
wherever possible. Otherwise an internal Grade 2 Controller, or an
experienced Grade 3 Controller, external to the host club, may be appointed,
subject to the approval of the constituent Association. (I'd have settled for saying they had to have an external Grade 3 controller and left it at that)
4.7 Embargoes on an area being used for a regional event may be set by the
Association registering the event. The extent of this embargo, if any, should reflect
the importance of the event.
Unfortunately the damage was done when the orginal guidance was more restrictive and all "District" events were defaulted by BOF into L3, instead of L2 which is where this new guidance places them.
Will BOF now automatically go back through the fixtures list and re-grade events? Or will it at least attempt to insist that the Regions & Clubs fall into line?

[awk]

Neil
As I said, I think the guidelines now are reasonably spot on (I'd perhaps tweak a couple of things, but too minor to worry about). They need more promotion, particularly to those clubs still putting their full colour coded events on at L3.

[Red Adder]

Reading App A again makes me realise this is a far better implementation than the farrago of last year but to my mind there are still a few problems.
e.g.

These guidelines have not been well promulgated, leaving most CC events at L3.

I think that the controller level needs to be looser still - there aren't the available resources to be too prescriptive. Perhaps the Regions should be given the facility to agree that any G3 controller is appropriate for certain events.

I'm worried when it says someone who runs green at a Long Distance event should also run Green at a Middle Distance one. Have the CC standard rules changed so that recommended lengths vary with the type of competition ? If not I would have thought Short Green was appropriate.

I'm still worried that there is a group of people (as evidenced by this news group) who expect the quality of terrain / age group class entry to be reflected at L2 and that other CC events should therefore be at L3. Are we in danger of going round in circles again.

[Scott]

I'm worried when it says someone who runs green at a Long Distance event should also run Green at a Middle Distance one. Have the CC standard rules changed so that recommended lengths vary with the type of competition ?

According to the new middle-distance guidline, yes.

[EddieH]

AWK you clearly missed a point I made. You say SOA have got it all right with the SOLs being our own special level 2 events differentiating them form all the other old colour coded events.

Well I repeat the SOA are extracting a levy of £1 per competitor for level 2 events. Which club are now going to ask for their colour coded events to be called Level 2? Yes there are a few in the fixtures list, but how many would there have been had the clubs concerned realised that they'd have to pay a levy?

YHOA - virtually all old C4 - become level 2
SOA - virtuall none of old C4 - become level 2.

Well you can forget about non travelling Scots appearing relevently on the ranking lists in future.

It is precisely this lumping of old C4's with anything goes minimalist events in one huge category that Greywolf and Red Adder so eloquently state has been totally cocked up, and unlike you I don't see it being resolved - (National standards will be sooooo different across the country as to be meaningless.)


It is precisely the