Nopesport Urban League 2010

[DM]

See the June 2009 Coaching Commitee minutes.

In summary; the Committee reaffirmed its view that ranking lists for M/W18 and under should not be published. Ranking lists are not used for selection of junior activities. We do not think that juniors should be put under ‘ranking pressure’ nor do we feel that travelling to events to collect ‘points’ is a good development activity for youngsters; much of such pressure comes from parents. The Ranking scheme was not seen as an incentive.

Nominated races are used for selection purposes, and for M16 these are blue courses (BOF decision). Races are things like BOC, JK and one in the Trossachs this year. If they want selection, they are going to travel to Devon and Scotland and give their parents hell if there is a suggestion of not going. So it's OK to have "selection pressure" involving travelling a greater distance than "rankings pressure" that would tend to be closer events that parents would be going to anyway. We'll still be going to the closer races, where our M16 will run blue - in preparation for the selection races, and if we say sorry he should run light green because blue is just too much he'll look for another sport that is more accommodating to competition. Is that the desired outcome for this age group?

Where is the evidence that rankings pressure comes from parents? Show it to us. If juniors have not been in the rankings there can have been no pressure and hence no evidence for the pressure.

[Mrs H]

much of such pressure comes from parents.

I am actually quite shocked at the crassness of that comment. We must assume it is based on selection pressure rather than ranking pressure as DM points out, but even so you have to wonder whether anyone on the coaching committee has ever parented a promising youngster.

We're talking teenagers here - unless they are self-motivated they won't get out of bed. I think it's pretty insulting to the parents who spend vast amounts of time and money supporting and encouraging their offsprings aspirations

[greywolf]

The urban league thread is discussing the ranking lists, and the ranking list thread is discussing urban orienteering...

Stemming from the confusion of the Carlisle race rules on M/W16s and below, with BOF's decision on the ranking system

a comment that the majority of respondents to the Ranking Working Group survey said they wanted juniors IN the rankings but several committees vetoed this (as stated in another post).

make that: "overwhelming majority"

Maybe there needs to be a distinction between "Senior" and "Junior" courses rather than an age distinction for the rankings

the default M/W16 courses are Blue and Green

[IanD]

We do not think that juniors should be put under ‘ranking pressure’ .... The Ranking scheme was not seen as an incentive.

They want to have it both ways. If the ranking scheme is not an incentive, how can it put people under pressure?

I don't like to be derogatory about people giving up their time for our sport, but frankly this statement from Coaching Committee seems to me to be complete and utter rubbish.

If Coaching Committee are to be consistent, they must certainly ban juniors from competing for Championships and National team selection. These surely are more important, and therefore produce far greater pressure, than the ranking list.

[graeme]

Where is the evidence that rankings pressure comes from parents?

Cui bono?
If you look on nopesport, whenever there's a junior selection someone or someone's parents are grousing about it. How much worse will it get if there's a ranking list to point to, giving (as it will) different indications to the selection races? How could they continue to use a nebulous "all known form" to justify their decisions, or force the top-ranked competitors to travel the length of the country?
If I were involved in the junior squad and teams, I'd be pretty keen to suppress junior rankings. So that's my guess as to where it's come from.

Of course I'm not involved in the junior squad, so I'm quite happy to see juniors in the ranking list.

Unless, once more, major sponsorship from a firm of vintners is anticipated...

[Mrs H]

well yes - I had gone on to think something along those lines too! It is to the benefit of the sport in general (including BOF central) that so many parents give in to the pester power of their children to get them to those must-do events and I'm sure the coaching committee know that - the parents are over a barrel. They are being demonised as "pushy" if they do what the selection procedures demand.

Certainly a ranking list would make the whole business of selection more contentious which may or may not be a good thing.

My guess is that the comment and the policy are a sop in the direction of child protection.

[Scott]

Anybody know whether the Child Protection Steering Group (Term of Reference here) still exists - or whether it ever existed in the first place? Presumably they would be the people to consider this, but (despite the promise to publish the minutes) those ToR are the only reference to it I can find on the website. Perhaps, like the Volunteer Workgroup, another victim of nobody wanting to be on it?

[awk]

much of such pressure comes from parents.

I am actually quite shocked at the crassness of that comment. We must assume it is based on selection pressure rather than ranking pressure as DM points out, but even so you have to wonder whether anyone on the coaching committee has ever parented a promising youngster.

Well, yes, over the years quite a number have, as a matter of fact.

It's very easy for those parents who aren't 'pushy', or perceive themselves as not 'pushy' (and before there is any danger of misinterpretation, I include you in the former Mrs H!), to assume that this is true across the board. But having occupied many squad/coaching posts over the years, and been a teacher for a few years now, I can attest to the fact that there are plenty around - I've been the subject of a fair amount of 'abuse'from several over the years, and I do mean in orienteering. (Some letters when a selector were absolute gems, and there is still one parent who refuses to ackowledge my existence, some 15-20 years after the case in point).

The decision to exclude juniors from rankings came when I was on coaching committee. The primary reason was this - that's why I was pretty certain it was nothing to do with the so-called fragility of juniors. When we made the decision we were fully aware that most juniors could deal with rankings quite happily - unfortunately all too many parents would misuse them.

However, this way, the parents are less likely to be accused of pushy, and the coaches/selectors are less likely to have even more spurious facts waved in their faces. Win-win in fact!

Graeme's absolutely right. As a parent I've never had a problem with rankings; as a coach, I have had plenty.

[Mrs H]

Andy I don't understand why you - and the coaching committee notes are talking about junior ranking as if it already exists - unless there is a secret list somewhere. Is that what it means when it says the list should not be published and are not used for selection purposes? So if they do exist what are they for?

I take issue with

nor do we feel that travelling to events to collect ‘points’ is a good development activity for youngsters; much of such pressure comes from parents.

Because that is exactly what BOF make keen youngsters and their families do in order to get selected - to then blame the activity on pushy parents is really not fair.

I have certainly seen pushy parents in the sport - but they tend to have younger children who are more easily 'pushed' once you get to 14 or so it seems to me it's the keen kids who do the pushing or that was my experience anyway- you can take a horse to water.....

[andy]

Andy I don't understand why you - and the coaching committee notes are talking about junior ranking as if it already exists

juniors were included in the first 'all-in-one' list, according to a w16 in esoc who was saying she would have liked to see them included in the new list.

[jab]

So juniors receive advice from people at BOF about which races they should attend. They pass this information on to their parents who have to find the time and the money to take them to as many as they can possibly manage. Then parents are called pushy for trying to help their kids follow BOF advice. You really can't win as a parent...

[IanD]

However, this way, the parents are less likely to be accused of pushy, and the coaches/selectors are less likely to have even more spurious facts waved in their faces. Win-win in fact!

Not win-win at all for those juniors who would like to appear in the rankings, and those adults who would like the rankings to be as meaningful as possible.

[roadrunner]

I seem to recall that, for the old ranking list, the parameters used (for each class at each event) to convert times to points were published; this seems to have disappeared for the new single list (or at least, I couldn't find them). If these parameters were published, then anyone who wanted to compute ranking points for people who weren't included in the official list (like juniors or non-BOF members) could do so - and others could see how the calculation worked.

(I realise that this isn't quite the same as including juniors in the scheme, as their performances wouldn't affect other people's points, but it's a possible way forward without requiring a policy change by BOF.)

[NeilC]

The decision to exclude juniors from rankings came when I was on coaching committee. The primary reason was this - that's why I was pretty certain it was nothing to do with the so-called fragility of juniors. When we made the decision we were fully aware that most juniors could deal with rankings quite happily - unfortunately all too many parents would misuse them.

Then things have changed AWK. I have been told that the reason for the current exclusion of first year M/W18s and below is purely based on the "safety first" principle and the protection of young and vulnerable children. I gather though that this decision is under review and there may yet be a concession for at least for the M/W18s whose ranking was recommended by the RWP.

[IanD]

I have been told that the reason for the current exclusion of first year M/W18s and below is purely based on the "safety first" principle and the protection of young and vulnerable children.

I find this truly bizarre. How can a child capable of doing well on a TD5 course be regarded as vulnerable in this context? And if they are indeed vulnerable, how can they be allowed to compete in championships? We have British championships from the age of 10 upwards, surely any "pushy parent" is going to be more interested in those than the ranking list?

I don't buy this idea that children need to be protected from competition anyway, but if there is a need, it is surely more important to protect them from competition against others of their age (where they could potentially be "blamed" for not winning) then from a mixed-age ranking list?