Closed clubs

[Snail]

I think someone mentioned on another thread that BOF are no longer maintaining / permitting a second club for any member.

Given that you can only be "competitive" for the club(s) listed on your membership card (Rule 3.2.1) does that mean that people can no longer compete for both an open and a closed club in the same year (Unless they leave one club and join the other under 3.2.2.)


And a second issue. What does "... restrict membership to individuals associated with an institution ..." (Rule 1.2.8 - definition of a closed club ) actually mean? To me it means that the individual concerned should be currently a 'member' of the institution - and doesn't extend to former members or to family members.

This would seem to fit with the practice applied to most/all university clubs - where once people leave the university they have to join another club, and not many people have 'families' anyway. But not to that used by clubs like BAOC and RAFO (& possibly others) which appear to admit both former and family members. Such a practice would seem to fail the closed club definition and so for BOF purposes the latter group are "open clubs"

[andypat]

POssibly someone from the Nope "Cartel" could answer this ?

[madmike]

This would seem to fit with the practice applied to most/all university clubs - where once people leave the university they have to join another club, and not many people have 'families' anyway. But not to that used by clubs like BAOC and RAFO (& possibly others) which appear to admit both former and family members. Such a practice would seem to fail the closed club definition and so for BOF purposes the latter group are "open clubs"

Personally I see Her Majesty's Royal Air Force as one of the countries finest institutions (I apply a broader definition of institution than just academic institution) and of course RAFO aims to be as inclusive as possible and "associated with" isn't too restrictive!

[Big Jon]

How about ex university members who have been given an hororary life membership? Can they run for the uni?

[frog]

What about UK elites who compete abroad under a Scandanavian club?
It sounds as they are being unnecessarily prescriptive. For most of us it's just a hobby. If you're in a small club it's maybe nice to support your local club at small events but run for a bigger club at relays.
I presume someone moaned hence the change.
I think as long as you don't get virtual clubs where good athletes miles apart join together and form a club and annihilate everyone else at relays ( like some cycle clubs I know) I don't really care how many clubs a person joins.

[graeme]

So if you run for your Uni, and graduate in June, then in October you're obliged to run for a club you're not eligible to join?

[andypat]

Who could forget the great University Challenge controversy of 2009....



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7919830.stm

[Big Jon]

Re leaving Uni and running for an "illegal" club - you can just join a club and run for them - if it means you don't count for ranking points, so what? If the rule really is you can only run for the club on your membership card then there has been a serious cock-up!

[madmike]

I don't think the rules have changed, I think the BOF database has and there was an oversight and they forgot about second clubs when they built it.

Rules for "first claim" club are surely unchanged?

[NeilC]

No the rules haven't changed. One problem with the current committee set up is that the rule writers are now so far removed from the rule makers that these sort of inconsistences are slipping through more often.

Fortunately the system doesn't appear to be getting abused and dubious closed clubs don't seem to exist. In the SE/SC for example well known army orienteers compete for an open club in the CSC competition and BAOC in major relays - which is exactly what the rules allow. The only problem now is confirming eligibility of the closed club - let's hope that we can continue to rely on trust. There will of course be people eligible to compete for multiple closed clubs, but must only officially (eg in relays) compete for one of these.

[Scott]

I can recall a BAOC team taking home a trophy at a "major relay" despite containing someone who was not (as far as I'm aware) a serving member of the armed forces. Nobody seemed to be that bothered by it at the time.

[madmike]

I can recall a BAOC team taking home a trophy at a "major relay" despite containing someone who was not (as far as I'm aware) a serving member of the armed forces. Nobody seemed to be that bothered by it at the time.

She may have been in the TA if it's the relay I'm thinking of.

[Snail]

No the rules haven't changed.

If you mean the intention of the rules hasn't changed - then I agree. But if you mean the written rules haven't changed that's precisely where the problem arises. If the rules are applied as written then people aren't allowed to complete for any club other than the (sole) club on their membership card - apart from the situation where they leave that club and join another.

What I think Rules group want organisers (& entries secretaries / controllers / juries) to do is to ignore Rule 3.2.1 where someone satifies the open/closed clubs rule - until the situation is resolved in some way.

If so then this ought to be publicised in Focus and/or on the BOF website. Otherwise some people may apply the rules as written and others as intended.

The issue mainly arises at relays. It would be better to resolve it in advance of someone putting in a protest at the JK or some other major relay - which could happen either because a team is disqualified when this isn't intended, or because a team captain (who doesn't read Nopesport!) follows the written rule and decides they can no longer submit their strongest team, but then sees others applying the intended rule.

[graeme]

It also applies to who gets trophies in Scottish Championships - if the organiser doesn't know some English club member is an EUOC member, its a devil of a job to find out. Previously the onus was on the competitor to enter using their "Scottish" club.

In relays, INT once won the Harvester Trophy (all club members) but were n/c for UKRL points (One person having run for EUOC in a previous race). Makes sense to me, you can only run for one club in a given competition. It's hard enough getting a decent relay field at all now, let's not bring in more restrictions!

[NeilC]

A number of decisions have been made recently (eg not recording second club on membership card, not ranking first year 18s) that contradict what is written in the rules/guidelines. Ideally of course this shouldn't have happened but for whatever reason they did, although hopefully the review of BOF groups/committees will lessen the chance of this happening in the future. However from where we are now, what should happen?

Should the rules/guidelines be constantly updated to correct these errors? This could lead to confusion over current versions and the need for event officials to continually check for new updates.

Should a continuously updated single list of amendments be published but the main rules/guidelines only updated on a yearly(?) basis?

Should we just try and treat the rules/guidelines in the spirit they were written and not try and take everything too literally? Any queries on interpretation can be addressed to rules group.