Junior point allocation in the NUL

[Mrs H]

I'd like to solicit public opinion on the allocation of points in the junior classes of the Nopesport Urban League where the junior class has had to be split - like at St Andrews and Malvern.

As far as Malvern was concerned it was not possible to offer the under 16s anything approaching sufficient length or challenge in a traffic free environment but at the same time the under 12s needed to be kept in the park.

Roger has suggested that the under 12s could be allocated points following on from the last finisher in the under 16s, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me - looking at the Edinburgh results out of 29 entrants only 4 under 12s beat an under 16. whilst not perfect the alternative seems to be to miss out the under 12s all together which seems very unfair and at least this way they can see how they are doing against their peers.

Roger also points out this will involve some extra work for him and the results gurus of which I am very mindful

So! what do you think we should do?

[King Penguin]

Roger's suggestion seems the most reasonable approach to me. I would go with that.

[madmike]

there is no ideal solution and I'm with KP, seems like the best compromise.

[Mrs H]

I should have perhaps mentioned that at the time of writing and with only a few days until entries close there are 5 under 12s entered at St Andrews and 9 at Malvern.

Keep the comments coming, I'd especially like to hear from some people with youngsters in that age category if possible (not necessarily competing at either event)

[Homer]

Having consulted both Bart and Lisa we agree that the only alternative to Roger's suggestion would be a separate M/W12- class.

[andypat]

Its a difficult issue - I think it will evolve over time with the Nope guys leading the way. Putting on a traffic free course for U12s is a huge challenge in some urban areas - I thought Edinburgh handled this well enough for the U 12s at least - but its then a compromise for the M/W 16s and notwithstanding their issue with W supervets.

[graeme]

Oh for the days when the M12s ran proper courses and gave the other 100-odd folk a ood cuffing.

james likes urban/sprint but wont travel to street races for juniors unless he's really convinced they'll be worthwhile - too many bad experiences

[Roger]

too many bad experiences

Too boring or too hard? (I suppose that 'too dangerous' is not a credible option.)

Although it's technically possible to tag competitors on a 12- course onto the end of M/W16- (and is certainly fairer than using min/km), I'd prefer not to. This isn't just because of the complications with handling the results files, but competition among M/W12- would be distorted by how many competitors there happened to be on M/W16-. If there are going to be lots of events with 12- courses perhaps we ought to have a separate category. Where both age-groups share a course they can still be scored separately; where they don't there's no problem.

It's 10 minutes' work for me to amend the age categories. If the Nope Gods don't wish to extend the official classes down to 12- then, in the spirit of the original urban league, I'm willing to set this up anyway -- for interest only. This doesn't imply that 12- can't run the 16- course, where they're permitted to do so, but would perhaps add some extra incentive for the youngsters to come along.

'Superjunior' is clearly wrong, so should we have Ultrajunior or Infrajunior? Or status quo?

[Mrs H]

Is there a helpful suggestion in there somewhere Graeme?

I'm guessing the cartel may not be too keen to introduce a separate class as some venues are simply going to be unable to put one on because of the insurance restriction. After all under 12 can mean 6 years old - and that is why I've put on a separate course. The under 16 course we are providing, whilst shorter than we would like, is definitely orange in places and not suitable for the very young.

[LostAgain]

Am I missing something?
There is a course, currently for the 16-.
Surely you continue with the same course but split it anyhow you like:
W16
M16
M14
W14
M12
W12

You'll end up with losts of winners, great for the kids who get enthused about winning or collecting some recognition.

Does not get away from Graemes point there is frequently no challenge for the M16- course, a poor experience. A park run with little more than yellow technicality, which weh nyour kids are doing blue/brown is disappointing.

[Mrs H]

Yes you've missed something, the whole reason I've split the -12s away is to offer the -16s more of a challenge. If I had combined the class it would have been massively patronising to the -16s.

[Roger]

Am I missing something?

Yes.

With some imagination, a positive attitude and due regard to the local hazards, I think it's possible to use quiet roads (e.g. traffic-calmed housing estates, even if in theory a 30 mph speed limit applies) for the M/W16- course. But as Mrs H indicates, this may be too hard to be a 12- course; moreover, the organisers may decide to impose a lower age limit (e.g. attaining age 13 in the year) on the 16- course for safety reasons. Being able to segregate the 12- competitors onto a separate course may permit a less dumbed-down 16- course, and give the younger ones a separate competition.

And if there's no separation, Juniors and Infrajuniors / Ultrajuniors can run the same course but be scored separately.

[graeme]

Is there a helpful suggestion in there somewhere Graeme?

Yes.
M12 Juniors are perfectly capable/happy to run "as hard as you can make it" urban courses. The main reason for giving them very easy courses is that if it does go wrong, the consequences can be awful (child wanders aimlessly of into the wide blue yonder with no ability to relocate. The secondary reason is getting stuck in horrible undergrowth/swamps/crags etc. A third is they might not be able to understand contours.

It would be a very unusual urban area where a child could get very far from "home/safety", or stuck in nasty terrain, so the rationale for follow-the-line feature courses simply doesn't hold.

You shouldn't patronise the 16-s, and the 12s dont need patronising either. What was that line of yours about "free range kids"?

(but they will like it if you have 12- prizes )

Roger: boring

[Mrs H]

The guidelines are quite clear that the organiser should take care "over and above" parental care. I have arranged four timed out road crossings on a course that is very definitely beyond yellow standard to do the best I can for the under 16s. Not all under 12s are up to orange because some of them might be 7 or 8 (and some of them entered on the Malvern course are 6 years old.) You have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't let a child of mine aged 10 out on the course so it follows i have to take care over and above that.

While it is my fervent wish not to patronised anyone ( the ultra vets certainly won't fee; patronised) . I have no desire to compromise my retirement by being personally sued when something went wrong because I didn't comply with the guidelines.

Free range definitely doesn't mean negligent and I don't think its particularly helpful of you to cloud the issue when I'm doing my level best to keep everyone happy - and safe

[graeme]

Oops, I seem to have missed out the line "if your area is suitably well bounded".
But anyway, I don't know what your area is like, so I can't tell if its appropriate for U12s: you'll know better and I'm sure the event will be safe and fun.

Not wanting to cloud the issue further, but I really don't follow the bit about "not complying with guidelines". As far as I know, the guidelines are the same for U16 as U12 and you're complying with them by using timed crossings.