UKRL: Goodbye EUOC and ShUOC

[King Penguin]

Whilst on the subject of clubs, relays and neighbouring clubs why is it that 2 clubs can band together for Elite relay classes but the same cannot happen at the other end of the spectrum ?
I suspect many clubs have MW12- juniors who are not up to Orange and would love to run in the mini-relay but officially cannot as they are not multiples of three. Should we not be encouraging this end of the sport by being more flexible ?

[madmike]

Yes

[mappingmum]

I suspect many clubs have MW12- juniors who are not up to Orange and would love to run in the mini-relay but officially cannot as they are not multiples of three. Should we not be encouraging this end of the sport by being more flexible ?

My understanding is that the neighbouring club alliance rule is especially intended to address that scenario.

I have approached neighbouring clubs with this exact problem and have always received a positive response.

[NeilC]

My understanding is that the neighbouring club alliance rule is especially intended to address that scenario.

The intention of this appendix is only:

"To increase the number of teams able to compete at the 'sharp end' of the Men's and Women's Premier relay competitions, and therefore provide greater opportunities for current and future international competitors to build experience of high pressure relay competition. Alliances are targeted at those clubs who have one or two elite runners in either the Men's or Women's class, but not enough to make a fully competitive relay team"

[King Penguin]

... and that is why I believe it is wrong and should also apply at the "blunt end".
Without a "blunt end" today we will have no "sharp end" in a decade's time.

[graeme]

You'll be wanting to come to the Jubilee five then...
where the rules are more participation-friendly, even for sassanachs.

Alliances of neighbouring clubs may enter teams at the competition convenor’s discretion. The spirit of this is to allow as many people as possible to take part, not to encourage the formation of especially strong teams. Any combination team which appears much stronger than their likely competition should not be accepted.

Typically, two neighbouring clubs should be allowed to compete as an “alliance” if one or both have insufficient competitors at the event to make a full team. This extends the BOF arrangements currently applied to the open classes and may include, e.g. only one or two juniors in a club with many adults. The concept of “neighbouring” may be interpreted flexibly for particularly far-travelled clubs.

[SeanC]

Mini relay juniors running yellow courses have a particular problem because they can't be easily bundled into ad hoc courses or run up, unlike even the older juniors and adults who have a choice of possible TD3-5 options. It means there are families where one junior can run and another cannot. I think the British has a junior ad hoc course with yellow, orange and light green but only useful if a club has exactly the right mix of juniors.

Neil - how do such rules get changed? Has this ever been discussed at the relevant BOF committee? Mini-relays should be allowing as many young juniors to compete as possible - very inspiring for them etc.

[SJC]

... and that is why I believe it is wrong and should also apply at the "blunt end".
Without a "blunt end" today we will have no "sharp end" in a decade's time.

Alternatively clubs ditch their weaker juniors in favour of combining with a neighbouring club to get a team with more chance of winning. End result - fewer juniors taking part rather than more (and it would be the better children that would push for this, not the adults).

[NeilC]

Well first all of someone would have had to decide who "owned" that appendix. In this case most likely Elite Competitions Group. You then lobbied ECG to make that change, they would say that they are not interested in non-elite matters and refer you to Junior or Senior Competitions Group or even perhaps your own Development Committee. The former groups would then propose changes to Events Committee who, if they agree, would ask Rules Group to write the new rule. This would then go back to Events Committee who would discuss it with all the other groups. After much toing and froing it would then go to the Board for approval.

Hopefully the new system will be more streamlined. In the meantime one can only suggest lobbying either a Board member or Mike Forrest (chair of the new Events and Competitions Committee).

[SeanC]

I seem to have wondered into the "Yes Minister" forum.

I send off an email. My son is 5 so he might just make it before he turns M14.

[andypat]

Probably the solution is for clubs to get more juniors.....

[Big Jon]

"Probably the solution is for clubs to get more juniors....." (Andypat)

Look no further than Maroc with over 70 juniors on the club books and regularly 30 at junior training sessions.
It is possible to attract new juniors, but it takes commitment and hard work.
PS Maroc has 8 (soon to be 9) qualified coaches and 13 members who have done the TOP1 course and act as coaching assistants. This is not enough and we are looking to increase numbers by 40-50% over the next 2-3 years - hopefully alongside even more junior members.

[King Penguin]

I would love us to have those sort of numbers, but we do not. Even if we did not all would make the journey to Scotland. We have 2 going to the JK who would like a min-relay run, but not 3. Without a third, one of them will run Orange in a mixed ad-hoc team, but the other is not up to Orange and will have to sit it out.

[madmike]

KP - just put a spare M45 or M50 on leg 3 - it has been done before

[madmike]

Had a reply from BOF they are looking into the rule