4-tier event structure defined

[awk]

Interesting (?) to see the discussion about where the extra tier now is! Simply confirms that when the 4-tier system was voted in, everybody had a different perception of where those 4 tiers were! However, to me the supporting material to the AGM documentation did emphasise the extra top-tier, not an extra lower tier, and that seems to be what BOF is trying to acknowledge. As for whether Level C should equate to former Regional or District events - one of the problems that brought about the whole review was that there were plenty of District events that were of a higher quality than Regionals!

I have to disagree with GML- I regard toilets as a basic given at anything but the most local events.

On terrain assessment and only being able to put Level B on in Scotland. There is plenty of high quality terrain throughout the UK able to provide excellent racing. Just different styles and demands - which is why the World Champs isn't always in top quality Scandinavian terrain. Equally, with the advent of shorter distances, plenty of areas come into their own (I ran on an excellent Claro area on Sunday that couldn't hope to host anything more than about 5k, but would be a brilliant Sprint/Middle-distance area- better than many 'championship' areas. Originally mapped for club informals.) Scores?? How are you going to score it, and for what are you going to score it? Now there IS a recipe for getting bogged down in bereaucracy - even worse to go down the voting route.

I see no need for names. Simply call them 'cat A races', or 'cat D races', similar to cycling.

As for numbes of courses etc - there is a grave danger of getting too prescriptive. The number or variety of courses do not distinguish the quality of the event or the prestige of an event. TBH, I think trying to tie down such a nebulous concept is a waste of time. Far better to do what the BOF paper suggests, which is distinguish them through the authority responsible.

All in all, I don't think the devil is in the detail, I think more that the devil is the detail, which, looking at this thread, could threatento become too detailed, and too prescriptive. The events should provide a basic framework upon which competitions are hung, something that the BOF paper seems to be working towards.

(Edited for grammar!)

[pete.owens]

Because that was what members voted for at the last AGM - following a high profile campaign and a great deal of debate. The extra level that is being introduced into the structure is level B, which is intended to cover a limited number of high quality events equivalent to the best of the historical C3 events.

Pete, I know that this was how the proposals were portrayed by some people,

including the proposers of the motion.

but unless you can point me to an AGM document to the contrary, this was not the proposal that was put to the AGM and adopted.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... ucture.pdf
From the supporting statement:
"This resolution, if carried, will have the effect of creating a four tier Event Structure by the insertion of an additional Level to enable a clear distinction between those events aimed at attracting competitors primarily from within the Region, and those aimed at a more national audience...

...The creation of an additional Level, to separate out the best of the former Regional Events and other events of similar standing..."

[seabird]

Is the scarcity of Grade 1 & 2 controllers likely to be the major determinant for the eventual level of many events, when determining Level B or C, rather than any any considerations of terrain, facilities or target audience?

It is desperately hard to find them already.

[GML]

All in all, I don't think the devil is in the detail, I think more that the devil is the detail, which is could threaten looking at this thread to become too detailed, and too prescriptive. The events should provide a basic framework upon which competitions are hung, something that the BOF paper seems to be working towards.

I couldn't agree more Andrew. By far and away my biggest concern is that the proposal on the BOF website is overly prescriptive as regards the minimum quality standards required of Level C events.

[SJC]

By far and away my biggest concern is that the proposal on the BOF website is overly prescriptive as regards the minimum quality standards required of Level C events.

Lots of discussion here, but is anyone actually going to go back to BOF with suggestions as to whree and why they have got things wrong ?

And it isn't just the Level C events. Level B requires "Pre entry, with EOD for non-competition/recreation courses" whereas I would expect many level B events to offer at least some EOD for the competitive courses, although this would be down to the individual clubs to decide (as they do today).

[Scott]

"Pre entry, with EOD for non-competition/recreation courses"

Like some others on here, I read this as a list of minimum requirements for each level: to be a Level B event you must as a minimum offer pre-entry, plus EOD on the "recreation" courses. I don't see that that precludes you from offering EOD on the competitive courses as well, so long as all the people who pre-entered are still guaranteed a map.

[Clive Coles]

I think it is true that even before the AGM vote was taken there were more than two camps supporting and opposing the tabled motion. To name just three .....there were those who looked for a clear identification of "quality" events that were worth travelling to. There were those who were worried where authority to stage an event was vested, and there were those who regretted the merger of real local events with the normal run of the mill Sunday morning events some of which were top quality and clearly worth travelling to.

We then had a nopesport thread where there seemed to be some doubts as to what was actually voted on as some supporting papers were not included with the AGM motion as tabled.

Good grief... it took some considerable effort on behalf of BOF to pick up the pieces and come up with a 4-tier proposal that accommodates most shades of opinion !

I suspect they are probably being unnecessarily over prescriptive in some areas ~ I am sure however that some clubs, with the agreement of the event controller, will come to view some rules as being a guideline and that some flexibility over what is actually provided will come to be tolerated. I have no problem with that. That surely has always happened.

But we needed a framework and set of rules that provided the flexibility to support that which we traditionally staged and the newer style of event that was growing in support.

I think BOF have come up with far better proposal second time round. Time now to endorse the 4-tier scheme and get on with running our sport.

[Red Adder]

If you are going to differentiate events in to a range of categories you have to have a degree of prescription of standards - otherwise everyone will continue to do their own thing and claim to being putting on an event at a certain category and the whole exercise will have been pointless. I therefore think you do have to set minimum standards for Cat C - eg up-to-date map, overprinting, e-punching, range of courses etc.

[Red Adder]

The more I consider this the key differential between Cats B and C comes down to terrain quality (and associated mapping quality)- whether the event is being run on an area worth going those extra miles to get there.

From this it follows work must be put in to identify the variety of things that make an area of higher standard (or at least not worse). We must also avoid simply stating Scotland good, SE bad and be a bit more open-minded about what can make for good terrain.

To set the ball rolling a few random jottings...

Good - plenty of clear line features near to start/finish (for juniors)

Good - large areas genuinely runnable in a reasonably straight line

Good - plenty of point features

Good - at least some areas with contour detail - detail is more important than climb itself (ie Dunes are often superb).

Good - sufficient size to do at least a 10km course without going round & round in circles.

Less Good - flattish totally treeless areas where controls can be seen from miles away or following can eaily occur.

Less good - very flat area

Less Good - areas which are very narrow or have lots of narrow corridors constrained by very steep slopes or vegetation.

Poor - areas with lots of brambles / deep bracken & heather / brashings / continuous fight / steep climb over very rough ground.

These views are subjective and some are clearly wrong when applied to a mountain marathon - but we are considering orienteering here. All areas of the country will have some areas that can meet sufficient of such criteria to merit cat B events. However we must be ruthless and reject areas that have a preponderance of the poorer features from hosting Cat B events. With a good mapping and planning such areas can still be used for a thoroughly enjoyable Cat C so they would not be lost to the sport.

[SeanC]

Can't we just leave it to the relevant committees to decide what they think is a Cat A, B or C event based on their judgement on the day, rather than documenting specific criteria that has to be maintained and argued over every few years? Does it really matter if a committee in one region have different criteria for Cat C than a neighbouring region?

If the spirit of the differences are defined (as I think the document does) this = a document that doesn't need maintaining as the sport develops. In a few years time orienteers will have different expectations and if we just trust the judgement of the committees we don't have to have endless redefinition, redocumentation and argument. There would then be more time to spend on things that are more beneficial to the future of the sport.. making making maps, coaching, publicity etc etc.

[seabird]

Absolutely right Sean.

Don't lets start tieing ourselves in knots again, like we did over 3 tiers. Sometimes we are just too clever by half.

Let's just make the 4 tier proposal work!

[GML]

If you are going to differentiate events in to a range of categories you have to have a degree of prescription of standards - otherwise everyone will continue to do their own thing and claim to being putting on an event at a certain category and the whole exercise will have been pointless. I therefore think you do have to set minimum standards for Cat C - eg up-to-date map, overprinting, e-punching, range of courses etc.

Apart from your reference to "range of courses" I agree with you Red Adder, but the things you list are all to do with the quality of the orienteering, and not the supporting infrastructure. Of course there should be minimum standards for these things at a Level C event, but there is no need, to my mind, to also require that there be an advertising flyer (how Green is that?), nor IMO the mandatory provision of toilets (although I acknowledge that others have strongly held views contrary to mine on this particular issue).

I am sure however that some clubs, with the agreement of the event controller, will come to view some rules as being a guideline and that some flexibility over what is actually provided will come to be tolerated. I have no problem with that. That surely has always happened.

I suspect you are right Clive, but this is hardly a great position to start from, and if this starts to happen for some aspects of the standards which perhaps you and I consider to be unimportant, how long before it starts to happen for other aspects that perhaps we consider to be more important (such as the standard of the mapping)?

[GML]

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/governance_4_tier_event_structure.pdf
From the supporting statement:
"This resolution, if carried, will have the effect of creating a four tier Event Structure by the insertion of an additional Level to enable a clear distinction between those events aimed at attracting competitors primarily from within the Region, and those aimed at a more national audience...

...The creation of an additional Level, to separate out the best of the former Regional Events and other events of similar standing..."

Neither of those statements says that the extra level is to be created between Levels 1 and 2 and that all existing levels are to remain unchanged (which it could quite easily have done if that was what was wanted).

The proposers also noted that one of the problems with the 3-tier structure is that in some regions clubs are registering their former District events at Level 3 rather than Level 2, and implied that the proposal would address this problem. The only way the proposal could do that would be if the requirements of a (now) Level C event were to be less onerous than those of an old Level 2 event. I believe the associated table made clear that this was the intent.

[Red Adder]

It wasn't some regions registering District events at L3 - it was the BOF default when introducing the new system - which was contrary to the spirit of the original 3-level proposal and kicked off the whole problem.

[seabird]

I really do not think continuing to paw over the history of how we got to this document helps us one jot.

Club Fixtures secretaries and committees now have a practical document that they can use to plan their programmes, which they can take to Regional Fixtures meetings. Regional Fixtures secs will be in a position to help us cope with any problematic inconsistencies which may occur. I'd be surprised if there were (m)any.

Our next Regional Fixtures meeting is next week. To date I am unaware of this proposal being remotely contentious in that circle, or difficult for clubs to implement. Certainly our club committee have had no problem with it.