4 Levels

[PKJ]

after 16 pages of debate I am fairly confident that all opinion has been aired on this subject

While I entirely agree with Becks that we should all 'just go orienteering', it seems to me that there's been endless comment on the current 3-level structure, or the 'ideal world', but not much on what is actually being proposed for the AGM. After all, that's what we're voting on.

The proposals for level 2&3 (as quoted some pages back) are -
Level 2 Events - comprising a limited number of high quality events, including the best of the traditional age-class based cross country events, high profile city races and the Harvester Relays.
· Level 3 Events - comprising a wide range of typical Sunday morning events for competitors largely from within their Region, including colour-coded cross country events (former District events), urban races, etc.

It seems to me that this creates as many problems as it solves. We'll just end up with another load of squabbling about what's in levels 2 & 3 - just in the next few weeks, are these in 'the best of the traditional age-class based cross-country events'?
-NOC's Robin Hood Trophy (Blidworth)
-EPOC's Regional Event (Castle Carr)
-AIRE's Regional Event (Ilkley Moor)
-CLARO's Regional Event (Hanging Moor)

[Red Adder]

I'm afraid I must disagree with PKJ as my interpretation of the new BOF guidelines should put most 7/8 courses CC events with pre-marked maps / electronic punching in to L2. This is something I'd be quite happy with - not the combination of these events with the informal 2 course /mimima; org / plastic cups and copy your course events. To me as a competitor this is where the dichoyomy lies.

[Oldman]

..... it might appear to be anarchy having the discussion on Nopesport, but we are the implementers of the policy when it is adopted.

Can you explain what you mean by "we"? Does "we" mean the contributors to NopeSport or some larger community such as club organisers or competitors?

[awk]

Red Adder, I think you misunderstand PKJ. This is not an interpretation of the current system, but is a description and discussion of the proposed 4-tier scheme to be put to the AGM by the "Gang of Four".

PKJ, of course, none of those events are, as none are traditional age-class based events (the Aire one certainly isn't). I'm not sure what they mean by that, as they don't exist outside Level 1. Maybe that's what they mean by 'a limited number'?

[PKJ]

I'm afraid I must disagree with PKJ as my interpretation of the new BOF guidelines should put most 7/8 courses CC events with pre-marked maps / electronic punching in to L2.

That's exactly my interpretation, and what we in AIRE are doing.

The L2 & L3 proposals I was quoting were from the 'Why British Orienteering Needs a 4 Level Event Structure' motion to be put to the AGM, not the new BOF guidelines - in an attempt to look at the actual AGM proposal.
I could add to the list of events which may or may not be included in the L2 'limited number of high quality events'
- SYO Middle Distance
- SROC Blodslite
- POW Welsh Championships (Middle & Classic)
...

[pete.owens]

PKJ, of course, none of those events are, as none are traditional age-class based events (the Aire one certainly isn't). I'm not sure what they mean by that, as they don't exist outside Level 1. Maybe that's what they mean by 'a limited number'?

Well actually there are five Level 2 age-class based events in the NW registered in the fixtures list this August (albeit at the wrong venues).

[seabird]

I wish to circulate the document below.

If anyone would like to add thier names to it, please let me know. I appreciate you cannot all have complete ownership of Aire's experience.

In Favour of the Existing 3 Level Event Structure.

We (we have attempted to distil the views of a number of commentators on discussion groups and of fellow club members) are very much opposed to the proposal to be put to the AGM for a 4-tier event structure. The last thing orienteering needs is yet another reorganisation - let's focus on making this one work.

The disagreement we have with the proposers of the motion is over their perceived need to divide the events which fall between Local and National events into two tiers.
.
In Aire we have found it very easy to utilize the new 3 tier system, and, as it beds in, have found no competitor confusion regarding what we are offering at different events. Clear advertising of what is on offer is easy to achieve.

We are opposed to putting the orienteering community through a further period of change, until throughout the country every club and region has wholeheartedly tried to implement the new structure. It is clear that the introduction of the 3 tier structure was introduced badly, but the alterations to Guidelines are gradually clarifying confusions that emerged. There is still some way to go on the guidelines for officials.

A lot of the confusion in implementation of the 3 tier structure has arisen because some clubs and regions have chosen to make the old District events Level 3 Local events. They were not helped by the original guidelines. These guidelines have recently been much improved. Local events are clearly designed as being low organizational input events aimed at a very local target group with “typically no more than four courses”.

The assertion in the proposal that the new event structure originally intended the old District events (usually those with 6-9 courses) to be Level 3 (Local)l events is wrong. The intention of the working party who proposed the new structure was always that they should become Level 2 Events.

A lot of confusion has also been created by calling the Level 2 Events “Regional”. Within the previous structure a “Regional Event” in one region on a particular day meant that you could not have another Regional event in the same or a neighbouring region. This convention/rule no longer applies to Level 2 Events. Much of the debate around the new structure is based on the false assumption that today’s Regional Event is the same as the old beast.

“Regional” now merely means that the Region rather than BOF take responsibility for the management of these levels of events. How they market the different Level 2 events within their Region is up to them and the clubs in the Region. Having all these events within Level 2 gives Regions far greater flexibility as to how they wish to operate their programme.

Level 3 events are entirely the domain of the club, with the region only providing oversight to ensure they do not conflict with the Level 2 programme in the Region.

The Structure was changed because strict age classes were not really working at many regional events because there were too many classes with too few people in them. This did not make for a good competitive experience – for example an M35 and M40 frequently ran in events with only 3 or 4 competitors. If you were a W35 or W20 you could win by just getting round the course, but there were 50 classes per event. They were also confusing and inaccessible for beginners.

If you remove the age-class structure, most of the other differences between Regional and District events had more or less disappeared because of the increased use of electronic punching and overprinting for all events, so there was no longer any cause to differentiate in the rules.

No amount of legislating from BOF could ensure that Regional events got better standards of terrain, planning, controlling or mapping than District events – an issue frequently borne out by experience – nor that standards could be applied consistently across the country.

Also the old rules were very prescriptive on the type of event being held – basically they were designed for the standard long cross-country type event and made no allowance for other formats – urban, middle, sprint, long-o, all of which are becoming more popular, particularly urban.

The new event structure still allows the old event formats to go ahead, but is much more flexible in allowing new and innovative formats to be introduced. Events run under new formats fit more sensibly into the 3 Level event structure.

It is perhaps worth noting that the 'high profile urban events' the proposers of the motion wish to include in their 2nd tier arose outside any reference to an event structure. If we are to have an evolving and dynamic sport, the less restrictive 3 tier event structure appears far more suited to enable that evolution to happen, i.e. it is customer demand and enthusiasm that has determined what becomes high profile.

The new structure is good for beginners, good for experienced orienteers, particularly those in the less well populated age groups, and good for innovation – all of which you would hope will be good for the future of the sport.

So what of the objections in the proposal?

• Identification of Quality Events: How is a competitor to decide which of these events are worth travelling to if they are all now described as Regional Events?
The first problem is who on earth decides what is a quality event? Having more courses is no indication of quality. Competitors make their own judgements about what constitutes quality sufficient to travel for, and different factors come into play for each of us. The similarities between a cross-country event with 7-8 courses and an event with 12 are far greater than the dissimilarities. However many courses they have, events are likely to be better quality in, for instance, Lakeland terrain than they are in the more limited terrain of eastern England.
And who on earth would determine which of the burgeoning numbers of Sprint, Middle Distance, Long O and Urban races are high quality and which are not? All these, in terms of event organization, professionally printed maps and electronic timing, have more in common with each other than any do with the Local Event (usually 4 courses or less, according to the Guidelines) put on by one man and his dog.

The existing broadly based level 2 which we now have leaves the important decisions about what is quality to the competitor. Is that so different from what we have always done? I have certainly chosen more distant “District” events over closer “Regional” Events based on a personal assessment of likely quality. Regions, if they wish, can create a stronger aura or brand specific to some events by using them for regionwide competitions/leagues, and set out their own criteria for those events.

• Entry Fees: If Clubs choose to register their former District Events as Regional Events, they may well be tempted to increase their entry fees for these events.
Our experience in Aire in implementing the 3 tier structure is quite the reverse. We have not increased the entry fees of our 7-9 course events, but are taking active steps to reduce the entry costs of our 12 course events. (Our forthcoming 12 course event now has the same entry fee as our last 8 course event.) There is absolutely no reason to increase entry fees unless there are large land access fees, PG plot or professional mapping fees to cover.

• Embargoes: The requirement for a 12 month embargo on areas to be used for Regional Events has been dropped, to permit former District Events to be registered as Regional Events.
The BOF Guidelines say: “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.” We in Aire are now planning on a basis of a 12 month embargo prior to any Level 2 event (we usually put on between 6-8 per year). This still enables us to provide 35 Level 3 Local events per year with between 1 and 4 courses.

• Controllers. Level 2 Regional Events should be being controlled by Grade 2 controllers, but there aren’t enough of them for all the former District Events, so now experienced Grade 3 Controllers are being allowed to control Level 2 Events. Newly qualified Grade 3 Controllers can only control Level 3 Local Events, many of which don’t need a controller at all.
Agreed; the controller guidelines have not been honed carefully to tie in with the new structure. But that is not a problem created by the 3 tier structure. Most existing Grade 3 controllers already have the experience of controlling events with 7-8 courses. There is a clear issue as to how new controllers and other officials progress, which could be being tidied up now, were it not for the uncertainty created by the proposal for a 4 tier structure.

We would urge BOF members to actively vote against the proposals and urge their clubs and regions to implement the existing 3 tier event structure as intended.

Within 4-5 years we will have built up sufficient body of experience to be able to properly assess whether or not the structure requires further tweaking.

Chris Burden, Aire Fixtures Secretary.
Andrew Kelly, Aire Chairperson

[The Loofa]

Somewhere earlier in this thread it was observed that the next London race is listed as L3, and there was also a mention of the bureaucracy involved in trying to change that to L2.

I was the person trying to make the change to L2. The reply from National Fixtures (aka PMG on these pages) had an attached 6 page document called "Fixtures Working Arrangements". I'll spare you all 6 pages, but will paste in this bit

Appendix B
Agreed Method for Allocating Level 2, Regional Events
i. Bids for Level 2 Events would normally be made at Fixtures Group meetings held twice a year.
ii. There is a rolling “ring fenced” protected period of 12 months for Level 2 events, thus providing some protection to clubs.
iii. No further Level 2, Regional Events may be added to the Fixtures List in the 12 month “ring fenced” period unless agreed via email consultation, which will be managed by the National Fixture Secretary. [In accordance with the BOF Guide for managing meetings]
iv. At each Fixtures Group meeting bids for future planned events will be taken for at least the 12 months beyond the “ring fenced” period to roll the process forward. This then allows clubs to plan Level 3 Events
v. Fixtures Group would manage the Level 2 [Regional] bids and would work together to negotiate out clashes.
vi. The list will be formulated with a policy of fairness and equality of fixture opportunity to all clubs.
vii. The 100 mile rule has been abolished.

Now I think that makes it pretty clear that the view from National Fixtures is that nothing can be listed as L2 unless approved nationally. That seems to be at odds with the view expressed by many on this thread that L2 are for Associations to sort out.

Discuss and enjoy.

[Red Adder]

As the instigator of this thread I'd like to thank eveyone who has contributed, and apologies to anyone who thought it went on too long.

The debate and the links to various documentation has helped me understand the situation far better and to come to a more informed view. It this that we should actually persevere with the 3 level structure and try to ensure that it is implemented in accordance with BO event guidelines.

[seabird]

Now I think that makes it pretty clear that the view from National Fixtures is that nothing can be listed as L2 unless approved nationally. That seems to be at odds with the view expressed by many on this thread that L2 are for Associations to sort out.

Discuss and enjoy.

Can't recall any proposal from our Association, at least, for an L2 event in the year that the 3 tier structure has been in existence, which has been rejected at a National level. Clubs and Associations are well aware of what dates to avoid from information supplied by National Fixtures. It might not go down too well, say, if we arranged a L2 event the same weekend as BOC.

[The Loofa]

Can't recall any proposal from our Association, at least, for an L2 event in the year that the 3 tier structure has been in existence, which has been rejected at a National level.

Interesting. You accept that your L2s have to be approved nationally. Of course you probably don't want to stage an L2 when there's an L1 going on elsewhere (mind you - look at today!!). But after that that I get the impression on this thread that many think each association can get on with arranging L2s as they please.

The particular circumstances of the London race were that we had to find a date that fitted in with other things going on in London. by the time we had done that the October National Fixtures meeting had been and gone. Furthermore the date we needed was already "booked" by the Caddihoe. We did tell SWOA as nicely as possible (that's actually not an easy thing to be diplomatic about, so I don't think it went down too well) and the last I heard they were thinking of moving, but that was a while ago now.

Anyway - main question - should associations be able to arrange L2s as they please?

[Sunlit Forres]

If we do end up at a stage where all level 2s are dealt with by regions, I wonder if things will continue to be managed the same way in Scotland as it is now. In the North (GRAMP/MAROC/INVOC/Moravian/BASOC) we have an annual 'North District' fixtures meeting in October where next year's dates are allocated to clubs to organise their 'non-regional' events (let's call them C4s in old money - district events in the truest sense of the word!). We start with a blank calendar showing all the major national events, SOLs, and other significant events in Scotland and build a district programme around those.

Because Scotland as a region is so large, it's not a problem if a club in the Borders holds a 7-course colour-coded event on the same day as one in Aberdeen. If all Level 2 events are lumped together I suspect we'll still have a situation where some Level 2s are more Level 2s than others. I doubt it will be a major problem because apart from deconflicting SOLs with each other we'll still adopt the same system that has evolved over time.

The English regions are geographically smaller than Scotland, so they probably don't need sub-districts (Do any English regions have sub-districts by the way?). Hence I expect the 'new' Level 2 system will suit South of the Border better.

[awk]

Andy (Loufa)
I would agree that the Appendix B is too strict and controlling: there was a similar situation with controller grades, embargo rules etc. This is something that the individual BOF committees need to get their heads around, and it looks as if Fixtures are yet to.

There would certainly need to be some co-ordination at national level for level 2s, just as there needs to be co-ordination at regional level for level 3s - people need to know what other clubs are doing when they organise their fixtures - so there is a role for the NGB with level 2 events.

However, this is still no argument against 3 levels - it's simply about bedding down, a bedding down where, because the ERG was cut off from the rest of the BOF, committees nurtured in the old structure have struggled to deal with even the basic principles.

The problem you faced would still not have been resolved by the 4-level proposals - indeed it is more likely to be exacerbated by it, with the level more closely tied to an attempt to provide some sort of quality label (even if, in practice, it doesn't - just as it never did).

[RJ]

...... with the level more closely tied to an attempt to provide some sort of quality label .....

This is exactly what L2 is supposed to be achieving.... a quality of event. Perhaps.... organisational, planning, terrain, competition etc. The setting of standards on embargo etc, and the oversight by the national fixture structure is exactly what we need for these events. They certainly should have some sort of 'clash' protection at the L2 level, where other events might appear less than 100 mile away.

This is exactly why there should be a 4 tier structure. This is exactly why the old C4 should be in L3, with club only events at L4. Maintaining this sort of quality, perhaps not TD5, because sometimes this just isn't possible, for the L2 structure will produce an event that people want to travel out of their region for. London City Race for example, and even something like the Maze Maize. It doesn't have to be terrain quality that attracts, but the competition, format, attractiveness.....

[awk]

...... with the level more closely tied to an attempt to provide some sort of quality label .....

This is exactly what L2 is supposed to be achieving.... a quality of event. Perhaps.... organisational, planning, terrain, competition etc. The setting of standards on embargo etc, and the oversight by the national fixture structure is exactly what we need for these events.

And that is where you and the other 4-tier proponents completely and utterly miss the point. Neither the levels nor a nationally centralised structure can provide quality and they never have. When has the national fixtures structure or process ever been a guarantee or innovator of quality? Quality comes from a completely different direction, and certainly doesn't need a national fixtures structure to attempt, and often fail, to define it. Far from it: I can clearly remember at least one recent Lake District event where the event was downgraded because of a quality initiative by the organisers (an event reckoned by many to be amongst the best they'd been to that year), and plenty of C3s and C2s which barely reached quality standards of some C4s, in spite of "the oversight by the national fixtures structure".

You talk about how the current system is unworkable. Rubbish - we are making it work very well thank you (which was the real point of my post earlier, which again you appeared to miss). But you want to bring back a system that was already failing, where the level of event was no guarantee of quality, because it can't be, which had proven highly restrictive, partly because of overcentralised control, and which will further extend disruption at a time we frankly would rather spend on other priorities.

Well actually there are five Level 2 age-class based events in the NW registered in the fixtures list this August (albeit at the wrong venues).

Yes, I was thinking more of the traditional (one day) events, rather than broader market multi-days. Of course, the multi-days have their own tradition.